Allowed

Akula Siva Rama Krishna, v. The A.P. State Council of Higher Education

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2024WA/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition. It held that the appellant, who cleared 10th and +2 via Open School Society having completed formal schooling up to 10th, was not ineligible under the Explanation to Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Single Judge set aside; Appellant held eligible and respondents directed to consider case for admission.

Akula Siva Rama Krishna, Vs The A.P. State… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.70 of 2024

¶3

Akula Siva Rama Krishna, S/o. Murali, Hindu, Aged about 28years, R/o. D.No.1-52, Meduru Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, N.T.R. District.

¶4

... Appellant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The A.P. State Council of Higher Education, Rep.by its Chairman, 3^rd , 4^th , 5^th Floors, Neeladri Tower, Sriram Heights, 6^th Battalion Road, Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District and 4 others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. A. Syam Sundar Reddy

¶9

Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. S. Parineeta - R1 & R2

¶10

Mr. S. V. R. Subrahmanyam - R3 G.P. for Higher Education - R4 Mr. K. Maheswara Rao, Standing Counsel - R5

¶11

¶12

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶13

Dt.: 02.02.2024

¶14

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):

¶15

The appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.31630 of 2023.

¶16

The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed holding the petitioner to be ineligible to seek admission to the 5 year LL.B. Course in terms of Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (in short, ‘the Rules, 2008’).

¶17

The petitioner claims that he had studied from Kindergarten to 10^th Class in a regular school run by the State according to the formal system of education. It is stated that on account of some family problems, he was unable to take final examination for the 10^th Class and later cleared and qualified the same from the A.P.Open School Society. Subsequently, it is stated that the petitioner cleared his ‘+2 Examination’ also from A.P.Open School Society and secured high percentage of marks. The petitioner then cleared the A.P. LAWCET for an integrated 5 years LL.B. Course and secured 357 rank amongst the candidates in A.P.

¶18

It is however stated that the official respondents refused to admit the petitioner on the ground that, having cleared his 10^th

¶19

¶20

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶21

Class examination as also the Intermediate examination (12^th Class examination) from an Open School Society, he was not eligible in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008, which reads as under:

¶22

“ 5. Eligibility for admission:

¶23

(a) Three Year Law Degree Course: An applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State legislature or an equivalent national institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for a three years’ degree program in law leading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶24

(b) Integrated Degree Program: An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary School course (‘+2’) or equivalent (such as 11+1, ‘A’ level in Senior School Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside or from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Government or from any equivalent institution from a foreign country recognized by the government of that country for the purpose of issue of qualifying certificate on successful completion of the course, may apply for and be admitted into the program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a degree in any other subject as the first degree from the University whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶25

¶26

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶27

Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission in the Integrated Five Years course or three years’ LL.B. course, as the case may be.

¶28

Explanation: The applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation/post graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses.”

¶29

The learned Single Judge, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, dismissed the petition by placing reliance upon Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008, reproduced hereinabove.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment and order impugned is unsustainable inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has not at all dealt with the issue as to how the petitioner was ineligible in terms of the aforementioned Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008, and that by simply reproducing Rule 5, the petitioner could not have been held to be ineligible.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the appellant was ineligible to seek admission to the 5 year LL.B. Course in terms of the Explanation appended to Rule 5 inasmuch as the petitioner/appellant had not cleared his 10^th Class examination through a formal system of education and

¶32

¶33

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶34

on the contrary had cleared the same through the Open School Society and therefore could not be said to be possessed of the ‘basic qualification’ as was otherwise envisaged to be possessed in terms of the Explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008.

¶35

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

The only basis for holding the appellant ineligible for seeking admission to 5 year LL.B. course is the fact that the appellant had cleared his 10^th Class examination which is not conducted as per the formal system of education regulated by the SSC Board.

¶37

On a reading of the Explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008, it can be seen that the same envisages that the candidate should be possessed of the basic qualification before securing +2 examination through an Open University system but certainly does not envisage an additional requirement of obtaining such a basic qualification through a formal system of education. In fact, G.O.No.723, dated 27.09.2008 issued by the School Education Department clearly holds that a certificate issued by the A.P.Open School Society who have passed SSC course in 5 subjects as equivalent to SSC, as per the formal system of A.P. SSC Board and further holds the same valid for higher education and employment. What is stated in the said G.O. reads thus:

¶38

¶39

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶40

“g. Director, A.P. Open School Society shall issue SSC Pass certificates under the emblem of A.P. Open School Society to all those who pass the SSC course (5 subjects). These certificates are equivalent to SSC of formal system of A.P. SSC Board and they are valid for purpose of higher education and employment. However, If a candidate proposes to enter into Inter I year course on passing SSC (APOSS), he would have chosen, studied and passed the Formal school subjects viz., One Indian Language, English, Mathematics, Science, and Social Sciences.”

¶41

The judgments in the cases of B. Mallesham Vs Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Others¹ and Surajan P.C. Vs. Commissioner of Entrance Examinations² referred to by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India are inapt in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as these were cases in which the candidates had all obtained the graduation degrees through the Open System without acquiring the basic qualification of +2 either in the formal system of education or through the open system.

¶42

Having considered the entire matter, we are of the opinion that there was absolutely no basis for the learned Single Judge to have declared the appellant herein ineligible in terms of the existing Rules as reproduced hereinabove.

¶43

1 2009 SCC Online AP 860

¶44

2 2016 SCC Online Kerala 38833

¶45

¶46

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶47

For the reasons mentioned above, the judgment and order impugned is set aside. It is held that the appellant is not ineligible on account of having cleared his SSC examination through the open system. The respondents shall accordingly consider the appellant as eligible on that count and further consider his case for admission if he otherwise makes up the merit.

¶48

Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J kbs

¶51

¶52

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.70 of 2024

¶53

¶54

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶55

WRIT APPEAL No.70 of 2024

¶56

(per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ)

¶57

Dt: 02.02.2024

¶58

kbs

Akula Siva Rama Krishna, v. The A.P. State Council of Higher Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Siva Rama Krishna, v. The A.P. State Council of Higher Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief General Manager Telecommunications and Another Vs C.Suryanarayana Murthy and 8 Others

G Masthanappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kommineni Madhava Naidu Vs Kommineni Muddu Krishnama Naidu

Dredging Corporation of India, Vs M/s. Ims Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap

Yellapu Venkat Ramana Murthy, Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh