Sri.Anil Kumar M P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025WP/27990/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eligibility certificate; Karnataka State Law University; three year LL.B. admission; endorsement dated 04.08.2025 quashed; Application Ref No. LW002S250000850; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; writ petition (EDN-RES); ITI equivalent to +2/PUC; job oriented course (JOC); BCI Rules Rule 5; KSLU Regulation 7; Naveenkumar K.V. W.P.26757/2024; Rakesh Shetty W.P.31737/2024; Abubakar W.P.200642/2021; N.Dinesh W.P.15723/2023; Krishnamurthy D.H. W.P.24206/2021; mandamus; certiorari.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and disposed of in terms of the judgments in Sri.Naveenkumar K.V. (W.P.No.26757/2024) and Rakesh Shetty (W.P.No.31737/2024); impugned endorsement at Annexure-Q dated 04.08.2025 quashed; second respondent directed to issue Eligibility Certificate in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days. ¶210

Sri.Anil Kumar M P Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶210

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 04.08.2025 in Application Ref No. LW002S250000850 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner (Annexure-Q) ought to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The impugned endorsement at Annexure-Q dated 04.08.2025 is quashed.

¶211

Ratio / Principle

The issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Sri.Naveenkumar K.V. (W.P.No.26757/2024, dated 01.10.2024) and Rakesh Shetty (W.P.No.31737/2024, dated 09.12.2024), and in view of those judgments the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶30

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the judgments of this Court in Sri.Naveenkumar K.V. (W.P.No.26757/2024 dated 01.10.2024) and Rakesh Shetty (W.P.No.31737/2024 dated 09.12.2024).ratio¶210
The second respondent (Karnataka State Law University) is directed to issue the Eligibility Certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days.ratio¶212

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), Writ Petition No. 27990 of 2025 (EDN-RES), order dated 28.10.2025: Sri. Anil Kumar M P, whose application (Ref. No. LW002S250000850) for an eligibility certificate was rejected by an endorsement dated 04.08.2025 issued by respondent No.1 (State of Karnataka) at Annexure-Q, prayed for certiorari to quash the endorsement and mandamus to respondent No.2 (Karnataka State Law University) to issue an eligibility certificate for admission to the third year of the Law Degree Course. Finding the controversy directly and squarely covered by this Court's earlier orders in Sri.Naveenkumar K.V. (W.P.No.26757/2024, dt. 01.10.2024) and Rakesh Shetty (W.P.No.31737/2024, dt. 09.12.2024) — which concerned candidates with ITI / job-oriented course backgrounds holding bachelor's degrees seeking law admissions — the Court allowed and disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments, quashed the endorsement dated 04.08.2025, and directed respondent No.2 to issue the Eligibility Certificate within fifteen days.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27990 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.ANIL KUMAR M P S/O PANCHAKSHARI GOWDA, AGE 31 YEARS, R/AT MAGADI, SHIMOGA, HOSABALE, SHIMOGA DISTRICT- 577434

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.GANAPATHI C V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MS. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶15

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY

¶17

REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH.K, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 04.08.2025 IN APPLICATION REF NO. LW002S250000850, ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNX-Q AND ETC.,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶27

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 04.08.2025 in application Ref.No. LW002S250000850, issued by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner at Annexure-Q, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing to the respondent No.2 to issue an eligibility certificate to the petitioner for the purpose of getting an admission to the 3^rd year Law Degree Course, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶30

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in the cases of

¶31

Sri.Naveenkumar K.V., Vs. The Karnataka State Law University and Ors – W.P.No.26757/2024 dated 01.10.2024 and Rakesh Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. - W.P.No.31737/2024 dated 09.12.2024.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

In Sri.Naveenkumar K.V.’s case , (supra) , this Court

¶36

has held as under:

¶37

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:

¶38

i) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing Application ref No.LW002S240001257 dated 21.09.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-R and consequently, direct the respondent No.1 to issue eligibility certificate in favour of petitioner by considering his qualification for admission to Three Year Law Degree Course in any of the Recognized colleges of the 1^st respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶39

ii) Grant such other reliefs as may be deems to be fit to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶41

and learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶42

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Mr.Abubakar Vs.Karnataka State Law University and others- W.P.No.200642/2021 dated 08.12.2021 and Sri N.Dinesh Vs. The Karnataka State Law University -W.P.No.15723 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023.

¶43

4. In Abubakar's case (supra) , this Court has held as under:

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

"The petitioner has completed his SSLC in the academic year 2009-10 from Urdu High School, Jewargi, District Kalaburagi. Thereafter, he has completed I.T.I (Electrician), a two years course from Shri Noorandeshwar I.T.I, Jewargi in the year 2012. Thereafter, he has passed three years B.A. Degree in the year 2020 from Gulbarga University, Kalaburagi. Thereafter, he has approached respondent No.2 for admission to three years LL.B course. The same has been rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner has not passed 10+2+3 as contemplated under the law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶47

2. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner ought to have passed Pre-university after passing 10^th standard and thereafter should have completed his Degree and then only he would be eligible for admission to LL.B. But, the petitioner has completed a I.T.I course for two years and hence he is not being considered for admission to LL.B.

¶48

3. Rule 2(vi) of the Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) defines ‘Bachelor degree in law’ as under:

¶49

“2(vi) “Bachelor degree in law” means and includes a degree in law conferred by the University recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of the Act and includes a bachelor degree in law after any bachelor degree in science, arts, commerce, engineering, medicine, or any other discipline of a University for a period of study not less than three years or an integrated bachelor degree combining the course of a first bachelor degree in any subject and also the law running together in concert and compression for not less than a period of five years after 10+2 or 11+1 courses as the case may be.”

¶50

4. Rule 2(viii) of the Rules defines ‘First Degree’ as under:

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

“2(viii) “First Degree” means Bachelor Degree in any branch of knowledge such as Arts, Fine Arts, Science, Commerce, Management, Medicine, Engineering, Pharmacy, Technology etc. conferred by Universities or any other qualifications awarded by an institution/authority recognized by the Bar Council of India, from time to time.”

¶54

5. Rule 5 deals with eligibility for admission for a Law Degree Course and it reads as under:

¶55

“5. Eligibility for admission:(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.

¶56

(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. Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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. 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.”

¶61

6. Based on the Rules, the first respondentUniversity has framed the Regulations governing three year LL.B. Degree Course in Law (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). Regulation 7 reads as under:

¶62

“07 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION (a) 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 recognised as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognised as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for three year degree course in law leading to the conferment of LL.B degree on successful completion of the regular programme conducted under these Regulations.

¶63

(b) Minimum percentage of marks in qualifying examination shall not be below 45% (44.5% and above shall be treated as 45%) of total marks in case of general category applicants and 40% of total marks in case of SC and ST applicants. Explanation: Aggregate of marks in the qualifying examinations means aggregate of marks in the final year of the qualifying examination or aggregate of all the years in the qualifying examination.

¶64

(c) Maximum age for seeking admission is limited to thirty years in case of general category of applicants and to thirty five years in the case of applicants from SC, ST and other backward communities as on 1st June.”

¶65

7. Based on the said Regulations, the first

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

respondent has issued an admission notification for the academic year 2020-21 in respect of three year LL.B. Degree programme, which is produced along with the writ petition as Annexure-F. In the said notification, the eligibility for admission to a three year LL.B course is as given below:

¶69

“A) 3 year LL.B. course :

¶70

(a) 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 Three year degree course in law leading to the conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular programme conducted under the KSLU Regulations.

¶71

(b) Minimum percentage of marks in qualifying examination shall not be below 45% (44.5% and above shall be treated as 45%) of total marks in case of General category applicants, 42% (41.5% and above shall be treated as 42%) for OBC category and 40% (39.5% and above shall be treated as 40%) of total marks in case of SC and ST applicants.

¶72

(c) Maximum age * for seeking admission is limited to 30 yrs (thirty years) in case of General category of applicants and to 35 yrs (thirty five years) in the case of applicants from SC, ST and Other Backward Communities as on 13^th October 2020.

¶73

Explanation:-

¶74

(i) An applicant who has passed the 3 years U.G. degree from Open or Deemed University recognized by & established under the UGC Act, after prosecuting the studies in the pattern of 10+2 at Secondary/Higher Secondary Schooling is eligible for admission.

¶75

(ii) The applicant who has passed the qualifying

¶76

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

examination U.G.degree in a single sitting examination is not eligible for admission to 3 yr LL.B Law Course of KSLU, Hubballi.

¶80

*A writ petition (civil) No.1023/2016 pending before the Supreme Court of India regarding the maximum age limit prescribed for admission. The admission of the students who have crossed the age limit is subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. In this regard, college has to obtain an undertaking from the students who have crossed the age limit in the proforma enclosed.

¶81

Explanation:

¶82

Provided that the 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 to 5 year & 3 year LL.B., course. Provided further that the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation or post-graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission to the Law course.”

¶83

8. By bare reading of the Rules of Bar Council of India and the Regulations of the first respondentUniversity, it has to be held that a candidate to be eligible for admission to a three year Law Degree Course should have passed a three years degree program from a recognized University and that he should not have obtained 10+2 or graduation through an open University system. Neither the Rules nor the Regulations excludes I.T.I course in lieu of PUC or 11^th and 12^th standards when a student wants to get admitted to a three year Law Degree Course. When that being the situation, the first respondent-University in its notification for admission to three year Law Degree Course for the academic year 2020-21 cannot insist upon that the students should have only studied in Preuniversity or 12th standard. It should consider I.T.I course for two years as equivalent to PreUniversity or 12^th standard. Further, the notification also does not expressly state that I.T.I

¶84

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

is not equivalent to +2. For the said reasons, it has to be held that the second respondent has committed an error in not admitting the petitioner to the course of three year LL.B Degree programme only on the ground that he has not completed +2, but has studied I.T.I before obtaining a valid three year degree from a recognized University.

¶88

9 . For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

The writ petition is allowed.

¶91

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to admit the petitioner to the three year LL.B Degree programme for the academic year 2021-22, if he is otherwise found eligible by accepting I.T.I course as equivalent to +2 qualification as contemplated in the Rules of Bar Council of India and the Regulations of respondent No.1University"

¶92

5. So also, in N.Dinesh's case (supra) , it is held as under:

¶93

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application to the respondentUniversity to issue eligibility certificate for admission to *5 Years LLB course. The said application was rejected by the University stating that 2 years ITI course is not equivalent to 10+2 vide endorsement dated 05.05.2023. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶94

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondentUniversity.

¶95

3. The issue whether the petitioner himself studied 10+2 was examined by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P No.200642/2021 disposed of on 08.12.2021 wherein at para 8 it held as under:

¶96

10 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

"8. By bare reading of the Rules of Bar Council of India and the Regulations of the first respondentUniversity, it has to be held that a candidate to be eligible for admission to a three year Law Degree Course should have passed a three years degree program from a recognized University and that he should not have obtained 10+2 or graduation through an open University system. Neither the Rules nor the Regulations excludes ITI course in lieu of PUC or 11^th and 12^th standards when a student wants to get admitted to a three year Law Degree Course. When that being the situation, the first respondent-University in its notification for admission to three year Law Degree Course for the academic year 2020-21 cannot insist upon that the students should have only studied in PreUniversity or 12^th standard. It should consider ITI course for two years as equivalent to Pre-University or 12^th standard. Further, the notification also does not expressly state that ITI is not equivalent +2. For the said reasons, it has to be held that the second respondent has committed an error in not admitting the petitioner to the course of three year LL.B Degree programme only on the ground that he has not completed +2, but has studied ITI before obtaining a valid three year degree from a recognized University".

¶100

4. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court having held that the petitioner therein having studied ITI before obtaining a valid 3 year degree from the recognized university was eligible for admission for 3 year LLB course. This writ petition is required to be disposed of in the light of the order dated 08.12.2021 passed in W.P No.200642/2021.

¶101

5. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

¶102

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

1. The writ petition is allowed.

¶105

2. The impugned endorsement Annexure-A dated 05.05.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶106

3. The respondent-University is directed to issue eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner is eligible for admission to

¶107

*5 years LLB course for the academic year 2023-24. The said exercise shall be completed forthwith.

¶108

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending IA, if any, does not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of."

¶109

6. In view the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the

¶110

present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶111

7. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶112

ORDER

¶113

i) The petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of judgments of this Court in the cases of Mr.Abubakar Vs.Karnataka State Law University and othersW.P.No.200642/2021 dated 08.12.2021 and Sri N.Dinesh Vs. The Karnataka State Law University - W.P.No.15723 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023.

¶114

ii) Impugned endorsement at AnnexureR dated 21.09.2024 is hereby quashed;

¶115

12 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

iii) First respondent is directed to issue eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today.”

¶119

So also, in Rakesh Shetty’s case (supra) , it is held as

¶120

under:

¶121

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶122

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the endorsement dated 18.10.2024 in No.LWOO2S240001282 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-A).

¶123

ii. Pass any such other or further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶124

2. The petitioner had completed his SSLC in the year 1997 and Job-Oriented Pre-University Diploma in Computer techniques(JOC) in the year 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner took up Bachelor of Commerce degree(B.Com) and completed the same in the year 2008. Subequent thereto, the petitioner was gainfully employed in a private company and worked for several years. In the year 2024, the petitioner wanted to pursue a law degree, made an online application on 24.06.2024 with the respondent No.3 college, which

¶125

13 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

application came to be accepted and he paid the college fees for the academic year 2024-2025. Subsequently, the petitioner received an E-mail communication from the college stating that the application filed by the petitioner when sent to respondent No.2 University for issuance of eligibility certificate, the University vide its communication dated 18.10.2024 at Annexure-A has rejected the same on the ground that in terms of the Government Order No.ED 19 TVE 2019, Bengaluru, dated 06.08.2021, the job oriented course could not be considered as equivalent to Pre-University course and in that background, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the above reliefs.

¶129

3. Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the job oriented course certificate, which had been issued to the petitioner has been accepted to be a proper eligibility for the petitioner to take up his B.Com course, which was also completed by the petitioner. The requirement for being admitted into the law course is 10+2+3year degree. The petitioner having qualified in both the aspects, it was but required for the respondent University to issue the eligibility certificate and the respondent No.3 college to admit the petitioner into the three year law course. In this regard, he relies upon a notification dated 26.05.2022, which reads as under:-

¶130

P£ÁðlPÀ ¸À PÁðgÀ À

¶131

14 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

¸ÀASÉå:ME 78 ¦ºÉZïJ¸ï 2020 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ

¶135

«zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:

¶136

26.05.2022

¶137

EªÀjAzÀ: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, M¼ÁqÀ½vÀ E-ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

¶138

EªÀjUÉ: ªÀÄºÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj, £ÀA. 02, £ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ- 01 .

¶139

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, ¦.¹(¹«-ï) ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½JUÀ ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ CxÀªÁ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, PÀÄªÀiÁj ¢Ã¥À PÉ.¦. EªÀgÀÄ 03 ªÀµÀðzÀ r¥ÉÆèÃªÀÄ E£ï PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ¸ÉÊ£ïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦AiÀÄÄ¹UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÉÄÃ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

¶140

1 ) ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: 22 /£ÉÃªÀÄPÁw- 2 / 202021 , ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.08.2020 & 01.10.2020 . 2 ) EzÉÃ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.07.2020 **. *******

¶141

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: E¦ 19 n«E 2019 , ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.08.2021 gÀ°è DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ, FUÁUÀ-ÉÃ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢ DzÉÃ±À ¤jÃPÉëAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ eÉN¹AiÀÄÄ ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À®Ä CAvÉAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: Er 33 n«E 2021 , ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.09.2021 CA±À ( 1 )gÀAvÉ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E-ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèÃªÀiÁ ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 )£ÉÃ CA±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹zÀAvÉ 2015 QÌAvÀ »A¢£À ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀzÀj r¥ÉÆèÃªÀiÁ ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀjUÉ PÉ¦J¸ïE ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ E-ÁSÁ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÀ¼À°è PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¨sÁµÉ vÉÃUÀðqÉ ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E-ÁSÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 2015 QÌAvÀ »A¢¤AzÀ-ÉÃ ¥ÀÆªÀð£ÀéAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

¶142

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E-ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ eÉN¹AiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2018, 2019, 2020 gÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ 2015 QÌAvÀ »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ¥ÀÆªÁð£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

¶145

L.n.L C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ 2020-21 gÀ°è ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹ CxÀªÁ J£ï.L.N.J¸ï £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀ (MAzÀÄ ¨sÁµÁ PÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è) ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVzÀ°è ¦AiÀÄÄ¹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀuÉ¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.

¶146

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, ªÉÄÃ°£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèÃªÀiÁ L.n.L ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÈw ²PÀët PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (eÉ.N.¹)/¦AiÀÄÄ¹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀ EvÀgÉ J-Áè ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ½UÀÆ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É.

¶147

vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ,

¶148

¶149

4. By relying on the above, he submits that the job oriented course certification sufficiently applies for any further education and as such, he submits that the respondent University could not have denied the admission of the petitioner to the first year of the 3 year LL.B. course.

¶150

5. Sri. Girish Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-University by relying on a notification dated 06.08.2021 would submit that the job oriented course could not be held to be a equivalent for 10+2 without the petitioner having taken up a 'language' in the said course and in that regard, he relies upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 28.03.2022 in the case of Krishnamurthy D.H. and Another v. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.24206/2021), more

¶151

16 -

¶152

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

particularly, para 11 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-

¶155

11. Though, the petitioners claim to have passed the job oriented Pre-University Diploma (2 years) and that the same to be treated as equivalent to the PUC, there is no material produced by the petitioners satisfying the requirement of they passing “One Language Course conducted by the NIOS and one curriculum subject (Distant Education Method) or passed examination in one Language or one subject conducted by Pre-University Education Board.” The aforesaid requirement of qualification was made known even prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 21.06.2018. The Tribunal taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra) is of no avail. No grounds made out by the petitioners. Hence, petition is dismissed.

¶156

6. Based on the above, he submits that the JOC can only be held to be equivalent to 10+2, if the petitioner had taken up atleast one 'language' in JOC Course. Secondly, he submits that in the instructions issued by the Bar Council of India, the JOC has not been held to be equivalent to 10+2 and what has been mentioned by the Bar Council of India is 10+2+3 year degree and it is for that reason that 10+2 has been regarded by the University to be either 10+2 CBSE/ICSE or PUC under the said syllabus and the other courses are not

¶157

17 -

¶158

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶159

HC-KAR

¶160

regarded to be equivalent to 10+2. On that ground, he submits that the stand taken by the University is proper and correct and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶161

7. Heard Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. R.K. Prathibha, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Girish Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

¶162

8. The short question that would arise for consideration is:-

¶163

"Whether the job oriented course taken up by the petitioner would be equivalent to 10+2 as mentioned by the Bar Council of India Rules under Rule 5(for short 'BCI Rules')?".

¶164

9. The said Rule 5 is reproduced hereunder for easy

¶165

reference:-

¶166

“5. Eligibility for admission .- (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.

¶167

18 -

¶168

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶169

HC-KAR

¶170

¶171

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.

¶172

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

¶173

10. Clause (a) of Rule 5 deals with Three Year Law Degree Course. Clause (b) deals with Integrated Degree Programme i.e., Five year Degree. In terms of Clause

¶174

19 -

¶175

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶176

HC-KAR

¶177

(a) of Rule 5, an applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State Legislature etc., may apply for three years' degree programme in law leading to conferment of LL.B degree on successful completion of the regular programme conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶178

11. In terms of proviso, it is stated 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 and as to the Explanation, the applicants, who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/post-graduation through Open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification are not admissible for admission to the Law Course. The Explanation relates to only Graduation/Post Graduation through Open University system. The Explanation, in my considered opinion, would not be applicable insofar as to determining eligibility of a candidate for three years' law course.

¶179

12. Insofar as proviso is concerned, what it states is as indicated above that an applicant, who has completed +2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence shall be considered as eligible for

¶180

20 -

¶181

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶182

HC-KAR

¶183

admission in the Integrated Five Years or three years' LL.B. course. Thus what is required is +2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate. This law relatable to 5 years course is not relevant to this matter.

¶184

13. The lacunae as indicated by Sri. Girish Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is that +2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate has not been defined and as such the University has regarded +2 as 10+2 in ICSC/CBSE or Second year PUC. However, what is required to be taken note of is that the said proviso also speaks of disjunctive First Degree certificate, since the usage is +2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree certificate. That would mean that if the First Degree certificate has been issued, the question of reference of +2 Higher secondary Pass Certificate would not arise, since the word used is 'or' which is disjunctive. So long as the First Degree certificate is available, the question of reference to +2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate would not arise in terms of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

¶185

14. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is only if a candidate were to have done only +2 and applies for Integrated Five Year course, then the requirement of +2 being either 10+2 of CBSE or ISCE or II PUC would be relevant.

¶186

21 -

¶187

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

15. Insofar as three years' LL.B. Course is concerned, what is required is First Degree certificate and as indicated above, if the candidate were to have a degree, which is considered to be First Degree, then the candidate would be eligible for being admitted into a three year LL.B. course. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no particular lacuna as contended by Sri. Girish Kumar, insofar as admission to a three year Law Degree course is concerned, since, what is required as per the proviso is that the candidate should have First Degree certificate, the reference being made earlier to Higher Secondary pass certificate would be irrelevant so long as the candidates were to have a Degree issued by an University as indicated and referring to clause (a) of Rule 5.

¶190

16. In the present case, the petitioner having done his job oriented course, the Job Oriented course was regarded to be eligibility enough for the petitioner to take up his B.Com course, which has been completed by the petitioner and the Degree in B.Com has been awarded to the petitioner, which would mean the First Degree certificate as contained and referred to in the proviso to Rule 5. That being so, in my considered opinion, reference to +2 Higher Secondary Pass certificate would not arise.

¶191

17. Insofar as decision of this Court in Krishna Murthy's case is concerned, that was a decision relating to qualification for selection of a police constable, where

¶192

22 -

¶193

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶194

HC-KAR

¶195

the requirement was a pass in PUC or equivalent qualification, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that JOC with a language would be required to be eligible for being recruited as a police constable. The recruitment fixing the minimum qualification of PUC or equivalent qualification, the petitioner therein had not completed his degree, but has completed only job oriented course and in that background, the equivalence of PUC with JOC was examined by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶196

18. In view of my reasoning in respect of proviso to Rule 5, the question of considering equivalency of JOC with +2 would not be relevant, since the petitioner holds a B.Com degree, which being a First Degree was sufficient for the University to consider for issuance of eligibility certificate.

¶197

19. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶198

ORDER

¶199

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶200

ii. A certiorari is issued and the endorsement dated 18.10.2024 by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is quashed.

¶201

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue eligibility certificate in pursuance of the observations made hereinabove within a

¶202

23 -

¶203

NC: 2025:KHC:42826 WP No. 27990 of 2025

¶204

HC-KAR

¶205

period of 15 days of receipt of copy of this Order.”

¶206

In view of the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the

¶207

present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶208

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶209

ORDER

¶210

i) The petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of judgments of this Court in the cases of Sri.Naveenkumar K.V., Vs. The Karnataka State Law University and Ors – W.P.No.26757/2024 dated 01.10.2024 and Rakesh Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. -W.P.No.31737/2024 dated 09.12.2024.

¶211

ii) Impugned endorsement at Annexure-Q dated 04.08.2025 is hereby quashed;

¶212

iii) 2^nd respondent is directed to issue Eligibility Certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today.

¶213

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶214

¶215

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri.Anil Kumar M P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Anil Kumar M P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasha Kabeer Vs the State of Karnataka

Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Agastegowda Deepak Thirumakudalu Vs the Addl/Joint/Deputy Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt P Anuradha Vs State of Karnataka

Anunahally Nanjachari Swamy Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Sri Om Traders Vs Union of India