Allowed

Gajendra. P v. Karnataka State Law University

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/6895/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition by students who obtained BA degrees via Karnataka State Open University. While the Court interpreted Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, as barring direct open university graduates from the 3-year LLB course, it directed the university to admit the petitioners into the 5-year integrated LLB course.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to be permitted to attend classes and pursue the 5-year LLB course for the academic year 2023-24 upon payment of prescribed fees.

Gajendra. P Vs Karnataka State Law University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6895 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GAJENDRA. P S/O. PUTTARANGA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. CHITTANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU-570 001.

¶10

G. M. MAHADEVA S/O. VADGALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. MADIGAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU-570 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SMT. RASHMI M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 025.

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶19

MUKTHA GANGOTRI, MYSURU-570006.

¶20

MAHAJANA LAW COLLEGE 8 JCG+CFL, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 012.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL REP. BY SECRETARY OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001

¶25

THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY 21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA NEAR BAL BHAWAN NEW DELHI – 110 002.

¶26

…..RESPONDENTS

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶28

(BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SANGAY, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. ABHISHEK M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 SMT. MAMATA SHETTY, AGA FOR R4 & R6 SRI. SHRIKAR JAI GOVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. G. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R7 SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO ISSUE AN ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONERS TO PURSUE LLB DEGREE COURSE AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 3 TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION/ TAKE ON RECORD THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMISSION AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO ATTEND THE CLASSES/ PURSUE LLB COURSE SUBJECT/ PURSUANT TO THE PAYMENT OF NECESSARY PRESCRIBED FEE AND ETC.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking for the following prayers:

¶33

"1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to issue an eligibility certificate to the petitioners to pursue LLB degree course in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶36

2. Direct the respondents No.1 and 3 to prove the admission/take on record the application of the petitioners for the purpose of admission and permit the petitioners to attend the classes/pursue LLB course subject/ pursuant to the payment of necessary prescribed fee.

¶37

3. Permit the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 to join respondent No.3 college or any other law college affiliated to the KSLU-1^st respondent, where there are vacant seats.

¶38

4. To recognize the course/degree completed by the petitioners in compliance with the order of UGC-respondent No.5, dated 03.10.2019 and 08.05.2019 which is produced at Annexures L and M and provide an opportunity to the petitioners to pursue his LLB degree based on merits.

¶39

5. Such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶41

Petitioner No.1 completed pre-university education in the year 2011-12 and petitioner No.2 completed preuniversity education in the year 2013. The petitioners

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶43

having immense zeal to pursue higher education and become a graduate, joined for Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in the year 2015 in respondent No.2 – University and completed degree in the year 2020. After the completion of B.A. degree from respondent No.2 – University, the petitioners with an intention to pursue higher studies in law, approached respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 – College orally informed that the University Grant Commission has issued a public notice on 16.06.2015, thereby withdrawn the recognition of respondent No.2 beyond the academic year 2012-13. Since, the petitioners have obtained B.A. degree from respondent No.2 in the academic year 2014-15, the petitioners cannot be admitted to respondent No.3 – College. The Government of Karnataka considering the students' grievance, by its Government Order dated 05.03.2018, read with corrigendum dated 03.05.2018, ordered that those who have got admission and completed non-technical in-house course during the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15 are considered for further

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶45

education, selection and promotion. Respondent No.3 without considering the said Government Order and orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.34255/2016, disposed on 27.06.2016 and W.P.No.15645/2022, disposed on 23.08.2022, rejected the petitioners' eligibility to pursue LLB Course. The petitioners aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not admitting them in 3 year LLB course, filed this writ petition.

¶46

Respondent No.5 – University Grants Commission (UGC) filed statement of objections contending that UGC has not withdrawn the approval for the Karnataka State Open University (KSOU) with retrospective effect for academic year 2013-14 and 201415. It is clarified that Open and Distance programmes of respondent No.2 - KSOU were recognized until 2012-13 by the erstwhile DEC, IGNOU and no further recognition was given to respondent No.2 until 2017-18. The UGC ODL Regulations, 2017, were notified on 23.06.2017 and subsequently, the process for granting recognition to the

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶48

Higher Educational Institutions for offering programmes through Open Distance Learning mode was initiated by the UGC. Respondent No.2 - KSOU was granted recognition for its ODL programmes for the period 2018-19 to 2022-23 vide letters dated 14.08.2018 and 25.10.2018, and further, recognition was granted to respondent No.2 – KSOU for the academic session beginning from July 2021. It is contended that respondent No.2 – KSOU was not recognized by DEC, IGNOU/DEB, UGC for offering any programme from 2013-14 to 2017-18 and further, UGC has issued a public notice on 16.06.2015, for awareness of general public and stakeholders about the wrong reporting, publicity in newspaper with respect to validity of the recognition of the programmes of respondent No.2 – KSOU and also addressed a communication to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Karnataka seeking intervention of the Government in the matter and urged upon Vice-Chancellor to follow the UGC directives and guidelines for running the ODL programmes. A communication was sent to respondent No.2 on

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶50

18.08.2021, mentioning not to issue any degree for the years for which either the KSOU was not recognized or Territorial Jurisdiction has not been complied, if any violation is noticed, punitive action shall be initiated against the KSOU. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned

¶52

counsel for the respondents.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶54

the petitioners are eligible for admission in 3 years LLB course in respondent No.3 - College. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 05.03.2018, read with corrigendum dated 03.05.2018, and also the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.34255/2016 disposed of on 27.06.2016 and

¶55

SMT. SHRUTHI K.V. VS. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY

¶56

AND OTHERS in W.P.No.15645/2022 disposed of on

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶59

23.08.2022, respondents No.1 and 3 have failed to

¶60

consider the Government Order, corrigendum and orders passed by this Court. Hence, he submits that action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioners to 3 year LLB degree course is contrary to the Government Order and the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition.

¶61

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the UGC has the power over all the Universities, including the University created under the statute of State, like respondent No.2 – KSOU, in the matter of setting academic standards and maintaining the same. He submits that the UGC is the premium academic regulatory institution of the country whose mandate is merely to release the grants to the University in the country but also it has overarching responsibility to set academic standards and maintain the same in all the Universities. He submits that respondent No.2 – KSOU was

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶63

not recognized by DEC IGROU/DEB UGC for offering any programme from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Hence, degree certificate issued to the petitioners by respondent No.2 has no sanctity in the eye of law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶64

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that as per Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008'), the petitioners are not eligible for admission to LLB degree course as the petitioners have obtained graduation through Open University System directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶65

Perused the records and considered the

¶66

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶67

The petitioners are the students enrolled for the

¶68

various courses offered by respondent No.2 – KSOU under in-house system for the academic year 2014-15 and

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶71

obtained a B.A. degree in the year 2020. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that they were qualified and eligible to pursue the LLB degree course in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992. But the respondent No.3 - College refused to admit the petitioners in LLB course on the ground that the petitioners are not eligible as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008. In order to consider the case of the petitioners, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008, which reads as under:

¶72

4. Law courses

¶73

There shall be two courses of law leading to Bachelors Degree in Law as hereunder,

¶74

(a) A three year degree course in law undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors' Degree in any discipline of studies from a University or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India.

¶75

Provided that admission to such a course of study for a degree in law is obtained from a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶76

(b) A double degree integrated course combining Bachelors' Degree course as designated by the University concerned in any discipline of study

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶79

together with the Bachelors' degree course in law, which shall be of not less than five years' duration leading to the integrated degree in the respective discipline of knowledge and Law together.

¶80

Provided that such an integrated degree program in law of the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶81

Provided further that in the case of integrated double degree course the entire double degree course can be completed in one year less than the total time for regularly completing the two courses one after the other in regular and immediate succession, meaning thereby, that if the degree course in the basic discipline, such as in Arts, Science, Social Science, Commerce, Management, Fine Arts, Engineering, Technology or medicine etc. is of three years' duration of studies, integrated course in law with the basic degree in the discipline could be completed in five years' time but where the degree course in basic discipline takes four or five years, the integrated degree in law with such degree course in the discipline would take one year less for completing in regular time than the total time taken for the two degrees taken separately if completed back to back.

¶82

Explanation 1 : Double degree integrated course such as BA., LL.B. can be completed within (3+3-1) i.e., 5 years. But if one intends to do B.Tech., LL.B. it can be done in (4+3-1) i.e., 6 years.

¶83

Explanation 2 : Suppose in a University one can have a two years' graduation in any social science leading to BA degree, in that case also the composite double degree integrated course leading to BA,LL.B. would be of five years duration because

¶84

13 -

¶85

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶86

double degree integrated course cannot be of less than five years' duration.

¶87

5. Eligibility for admission:

¶88

(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 of 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 LLB degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by the University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶89

(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 Centers 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.

¶90

14 -

¶91

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶92

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 LLB course, as the case may be.

¶93

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.

¶94

A conjoint reading of these rules makes it clear that 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 equivalent National Institution recognized as a deemed University or Foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence is eligible for three years law degree course on successful completion of the degree in law as recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment. For an integrated degree

¶95

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶96

program, an applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary School Course +2 or equivalent (such as 11+1) 'A' level in Senior Secondary Leaving Certificate course from a recognized university for the purpose of issue of qualifying service is eligible to obtain integrated degree in law and such degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶97

Proviso to Rule 5 provides that applicants who have obtained +2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or I Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall be eligible for admission in the integrated 5 years course or 3 years LLB course. Explanation further provides that the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/ post-graduation through open university system directly without having any basic qualification through open university system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law course.

¶98

16 -

¶99

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶100

Rule 5 of the Rules is upheld by this Court as well as by other courts. The stand of BCI was that the said rule is wrongly understood by the petitioners therein in W.P.No.19068/2010 and connected matters reported in (2014) 2 AIR KAR R 738 . It was asserted that it does not recognize or eschew the courses pursue through open university or distance mode. The Bar council only prescribes that there should be only basic education which each candidate should have undertaken and prosecuted.

¶101

Explanation to Rule 5 makes it clear that the applicant who has 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 course. This makes it very clear that the qualification prescribed for three years as well as integrated law course, is as per the basic qualification prescribed therein and the qualification obtained by open Universities or private

¶102

17 -

¶103

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶104

study, is not the qualification for the purpose of consideration.

¶105

The applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/post-graduation through open university are totally disentitled for entry into law course. Prima facie, it is clear that the applicants who obtained 10+2 through open university system directly are not eligible for 5 years integrated course and similarly the applicants who have obtained graduation / post-graduation through open Universities system directly are also not eligible for admission for 3 years LLB course.

¶106

Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008, is upheld by this court as well as by the other courts. In W.P.No.19608/2010 and connected matters, the stand of

¶107

the stand of the BCI was that the said Rules is wrongly understood by the petitioner therein. It was asserted that it does not recognize or eschew the courses pursued through open Universities or distance mode. The Bar council only prescribes that there should be only a basic

¶108

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶109

education which each candidate should have undertaken or prosecuted. But now, it was argued that there is total prohibition to accord approval for the admissions to the law courses, if the applicants acquired 10+2 or graduation/post-graduation through open universities system.

¶110

Eligibility for admission to I year & II year preuniversity courses: (1) A pass in secondary school leaving certificate course of tenth standard examination conducted by the Karnataka State Secondary Examination Board of pass in an equivalent examination shall be the minimum qualification for admission to the first year pre-university course . (2) No student shall be admitted to the first

¶111

year.

¶112

In the case of ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶113

INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT reported in 2009

¶114

AIR SCW 2087 at para Nos.41 and 42, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus:

¶115

19 -

¶116

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶117

"41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act was in substitution of the formal system is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted. UGC Act was enacted for effectuating co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect.

¶118

42. The provisions of the UGC act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the Coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have

¶119

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶120

noticed hereinbefore that the functions of the UGC are all pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof."

¶121

The Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court

¶122

in the case of SAKTHIRAM VS. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU in W.P.No.26257/2009 and connected matters disposed of on 16.04.2010, has held thus in paragraphs 23 and 24:

¶123

“23. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Sections 7, 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iii a), 49(1), (ag) and (ah) of the Act, clearly provide the required power and authority for the Bar Council of India to prescribe the minimum qualification, standard, inclusive of minimum marks, attendance, curriculum and other incidental qualifications to the Law University and the Law College recognized by it. Accordingly, the Bar Council of India in exercise of its power under Sections 7(1)(h) and (i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, has introduced the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which has come into effect from 14.09.2008 onwards.

¶124

21 -

¶125

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶126

24. A degree has been defined by the University Grants Commission Act, 1985 and the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission. As per the said act and Regulations, a degree has to be for a duration of 3 years after the completion of +2 course. However, under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, a student is permitted to undergo and complete a post graduate degree without a basic as well as a first degree. The Division Bench of this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY referred (supra) has held that University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and its regulation will have overriding effect on the provisions of the IGNOU Act, 1985 and therefore, a degree only means a degree obtained under the above said act. In other words, it was held that a degree obtained under the IGNOU Act, 1985 from open university is not a valid degree.

¶127

The Hon’ble Apex Court also considered Section 24(3)(d) of the Act by holding that the said sub-section can only be used to qualify a person who was otherwise disqualified under Section 24(1) of the Act. Hence, it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the

¶128

22 -

¶129

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶130

case where the Bar Council of India sought to prevent the enrolment which was in the domain of the State Bar Council. The Hon’ble Apex Court was also dealing with Section 49(1)(ag) and (ah) and not the power exercised by the Bar Council of India.

¶131

Similarly in the case of V. SUDHEER VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA reported in (1999) 3 SCC 176 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a case wherein Bar Council of India sought to impose condition that after the completion of the law course, a candidate will have to undergo an apprenticeship before enrolment, the Hon’ble Apex Court by following the said ratio, has held that such a condition cannot be imposed by the Bar Council of India and it does not have the power or authority under Section 49(1) and Section 7(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Apex Court has specified in the said judgment that Section 49(1)(a) of the Act deals with the minimum qualification required for admission to the course in law in a recognized university and the said provision does not

¶132

23 -

¶133

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶134

have anything to do with the rules impugned therein. The

¶135

Hon’ble Apex Court was also considering the scope of Section 7(h)(1), Section 24(3)(d) and Section 49(1)(ag) and (ah) and not Section 49(1)(a) of the Act.

¶136

The explanation has to be given effect to, as a

¶137

whole to make it consistent with the dominant object of the Rules in order to make it meaningful and purposeful.

¶138

The language employed indicates the object and intent of the explanation. If the intention of the rule makers was to prohibit the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/post graduation through open Universities system, phrase “directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies” ought not to have employed, these words cannot be set at naught; it cannot be said read in isolation. A reading of the explanation as a whole, suggest that 10+2 or graduation/post graduation through open Universities system would not be a bar for admission to the law courses, but to embargo placed is in obtaining such

¶139

24 -

¶140

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶141

qualification without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies. Thus, it is clear that a candidate without attending the school for 10 years completes 10+2 directly through open University is not eligible for 5 years integrated law course. Similarly, jumping the queue at their convenience that is not completing 10+2 directly, completing graduation through open University cannot be considered as a eligible for admission to 3 year LLB course. In the instant case, the petitioners have completed their 10+2 in a regular schooling, but the petitioners have obtained graduation from the Karnataka State University.

¶142

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N.B.BHARGAVI DRAVID & ORS., VS. KARNATAKA

¶143

STATE LAW UNIVERSITY & ORS., reported in (2017) 3 SCC ONLINE KARNATAKA 6639 , had an occasion to consider Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 wherein it is held as under:

¶144

25 -

¶145

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶146

"36. W.P.No.56941-946/2014, petitioners 1 to 5 were denied admission for 5 years Law course as they completed II PUC or (+2), through open university, Admission was refused to respondent No.6 for possessing low percentage. Notwithstanding completing degree bridge course equivalent to II PUC through open university and securing required percentage of marks to join B.A. LL.B., course, the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to admission for five years Law course subject to production of certificates for having completed Higher Secondary school examination and the I PUC. Petitioner No.6 has completed 2nd PUC in regular course, however he had not secured the required percentage of marks to join B.A., LL.B course, he joined degree bridge course through Open university (equivalent to II PUC) and has secured required percentage of marks to join B.A., LL.B course.

¶147

37. XXXX

¶148

38. XXXX

¶149

39. W.P.No.56213/2016 - the candidate has completed the X std in distinction through regular Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and thereafter completed her commercial practice conducted by the Board of Technical Examination, Department of Technical Education, Bangalore.

¶150

26 - NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶151

Subsequently, completed 3rd and 4th semester B.Com examination through regular course and III year B.Com. degree examination through Karnataka State Open University during April/May, 2014. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the university shall approve the admission of the petitioner to three year LL.B. course."

¶152

(emphasis supplied)

¶153

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶154

the petitioners are interested in joining 5 years LLB course. Hence, if Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are not eligible to 3 years LLB course, the petitioners may be permitted to join 5 years LLB course.

¶155

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶156

ORDER

¶157

The writ petition is allowed.

¶158

Respondent No.1 is directed to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioners to pursue 5 year LLB course for the academic year 2023-24 and permit the petitioners to attend the

¶159

27 -

¶160

NC: 2023:KHC:40726 WP No. 6895 of 2023

¶161

classes/pursue 5 year LLB course, subject to payment of prescribed fee.

¶162

SD/JUDGE

¶163

SSB,RD,SKS

Gajendra. P v. Karnataka State Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra. P v. Karnataka State Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramappa Vs Sri. Gangojirao

Shivanna @ Vs Nanjegowda

Sri. K.S. Jagadeesh Vs Sri. Ramesh

Sri B Narasimha Pai Vs the Chief Officer

Smt Sujatha M K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mehaboob Sab Vs Budji Mustafa