Manjeet Kumar vs University Of Jammu & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 590 j&K

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
                         (Through Virtual Mode)

                                           WP(C) No. 530/2020
                                           CM No. 1180/2020

                                           Pronounced on : 02 .06.2021

Manjeet Kumar                                      .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                               Through:- Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate

                         V/s

University of Jammu & ors.                                  .....Respondent(s)

                               Through:- Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
                              JUDGMENT

01. Petitioner seeks quashing of consideration order dated

31.01.2020 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal of the

petitioner for admission in LLB of 2019 through JUET has been rejected

by the appellate committee.

02. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the petition are that the

petitioner after qualifying matriculation, underwent three years Diploma

in civil engineering from J&K Board of Technical Education and

subsequently obtained BE (Civil) Degree through correspondence from

Vinayaka Mission University. The petitioner thereafter applied for

admission in PG LLB (3) years course for the academic year 2019-20 as

notified by the Jammu University Entrance Examination 2019 (JUET).

The petitioner has participated in the said entrance examination and

qualified the same having more meritorious than the last selected

candidate.

03. The respondent-University, however did not grant admission

to him in the LLB course, therefore, he approached the Dean Academic

Affairs, University of Jammu by filing a representation. The petitioner's

representation was rejected on 25.07.2019 by the Dean Academic

Affairs, University of Jammu holding that his qualification was not the

same as prescribed in Page No. 102 of JUET Admission Brochure.

04. Aggrieved of his rejection, the petitioner preferred a writ

petition [WP(C) No. 2999/2019] seeking quashing of communication

dated 25.07.2019. This writ petition was considered and disposed of vide

order dated 31.12.2019 by holding as under :-

"Viewed thus, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of along with connected CM by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Committee in terms of Statute 8 of Statutes Governing Admissions in Admission Brochure for 2019, University of Jammu. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, in such an eventuality, the Appellate Committee is directed to decide the appeal of petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of filing of such appeal."

05. The respondents in terms of the aforesaid order dated

31.12.2019, considered the appeal of the petitioner, and by an order

dated 31.01.2020 held him ineligible for admission to LLB course as his

mode of acquiring qualifying degree was not as per Statute. Concluding

para of order dated 31.01.2020 reads as under :-

"therefore, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered and he has been found ineligible for Admission to the LL.B 3 years Course as his mode of acquiring the

qualifying Decree is not as per the laid down Statutes i.e., of 10+2+3 pattern (Honours or General.)"

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been denied admission arbitrarily despite the fact that he possesses

the requisite eligibility as prescribed in the eligibility clause of the

Statute and Admission Brochure. It is submitted that the respondents

have not properly evaluated the petitioner's degree as his mode of

acquiring the qualification is 10+3+3 whereas they are insisting on

10+2+3 pattern for Bachelor Degree as stipulated in Page-102 of the

Statute. The petitioner, according to him, possesses three years diploma

in Civil Engineering and thereafter has qualified (3) years degree in Civil

Engineering through distance mode from Vinayaka Mission University.

This degree stands validated by AICTE-UGC and, therefore, he

possesses the requisite eligiblity as his qualification falls within 102

clause as per the Statute and the Admission Brochure.

07. It is also submitted that the respondents have also failed to

consider 'OR' part of the eligibility prescribed in the Admission

Brochure and statue which includes an examination qualifying for a

professional degree of not less than 3 years duration and as the petitioner

possesses the same, he, therefore, should have been granted admission

for the LLB course.

08. Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

University/respondents submits that in terms of Para-8 of the judgment

in WP(C) No. 2999/2019, this Court had already held that since the

pattern of 10+3+3 is not known to the University Statute, as such, the

petitioner cannot seek equivalence of his degree with those graduate who

have acquired their degree under the recognized pattern as laid down in

University Statute, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as holder of

Bachelor degree for all purposes. It is further submitted that in view of

the finding arrived at by the writ Court and the petitioner having

accepted the same, the same cannot be questioned in this petition. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has sought quashing of the order in

the absence of any challenge laid to the University Statute, no relief can

be granted to him.

09. The relevant eligibility clause at page-102 of JUET 2019

governing admission reads as under :

"A candidate to be eligible for admission to the Master Degree (other than M.Phil and Ph.D), Bachelor Degree (LL.B (3 Years), B.Lib.I.Sc. & B.P.Ed) and Diploma programmes in the University, must have passed/appeared in the final year of the qualifying Bachelor's degree examination of 10+2+3 pattern (Honours or General) in Arts, Science, Commerce, or Business Administration or an examination qualifying for a professional degree of not less than 3 years duration or any other examination recognized as equivalent thereof, from a recognized university/institution with at least 40% of the aggregate marks or as specified (36% for the Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates).

Candidates who have passed degree course of two years duration under 10+2+2 or 10+1+3 pattern and thereafter have passed bridge course of one year duration comprising Part-III of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Three years (General) course of the University of Jammu or any other recognized University shall also be eligible subject to the aggregate qualifying marks

as indicated above. A candidate who has passed M.A/M.Sc./M.Com. Examination from the University after having passed B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Examination under the old pattern of 10+2+2 or 10+1+3 shall also be eligible for admission under second preference category to :

(a) a course where the minimum eligibility condition is pass in Three Year Degree (General) Course after 12 years of schooling.

(b) a Master Degree Course in an allied subject, if otherwise permissible under Statutes/Regulations of the University.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Statute 1, a candidate appearing in the final year of the qualifying examinations immediately preceding the Academic Session & expecting to fulfill the Statutory requirement of at least 40% of the aggregate marks in the Bachelor's Degree (36% in the case of candidates belonging to SC/ST) can also appear in the written objective type Jammu University Entrance Test (JUET)."

10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

petitioner is eligible as he fulfills alternate eligibility conditions as, "or

any other professional examination qualifying for a professional degree

of not less than 3 years duration" after validation of his Bachelor Degree

by AICTE, the same is equivalent to Bachelor Degree awarded by any

other University therefore, he is entitled to seek admission. This

submission however was rejected by this Court while disposing of the

earlier petition wherein it was held that "since the pattern of 10+3+3 is

not known to the University Statutes, as such, the petitioner cannot seek

equivalence of this degree with those graduates, who have acquired their

degrees under the recognized pattern as laid down in University Statute

nor can the petitioner be treated as a holder of Bachelor Degree for all

practical purposes. I am also inclined to agree with view expressed in the

earlier writ petition as this clause has to be read in its entirety and as per

the same, the degree has to be in terms of 10+2+3 pattern, whereas the

petitioner has obtained the professional degree via lateral entry on

10+3+3 pattern of graduation which is not permissible as per the

University Statute 102 which envisages graduation degree only on

10+2+3 pattern.

11. The issue of determining equivalence of degree obtained by

the petitioner is best left to academic bodies who are academically

equipped to opine by considering the various aspects. The respondents,

who are experts in the field, would be justified in declaring ineligible all

such candidates, who do not possess the same qualification as the

determination of equivalent qualification for educational admission or

service is always to be ascertained by the experts in the field and it is for

them to decide whether a particular degree or qualification can be

substituted for another. In the present case, the respondents have not

accepted the qualification of the petitioner on 10+3+3 pattern as the

same is not in the recognized mode and as the petitioner has acquired the

same by way of lateral entry. It is an academic decision which cannot be

considered in these proceedings. It is well settled proposition of law that

the Court would not go into the question of equivalence of a degree of

qualification. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the similar

issue in Basic Education Board, UP Vs. Upendra Rai, & ors. 2008 (3)

SCC 432 held that the issue of equivalence is decided by the experts

and the Courts do not have expertise in such kind of matters.

12. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc. vs Karnataka University

& anr., AIR 1986 SC 1448 the apex Court has held that:-

"The law on the question of equivalence was succinctly stated, it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the course, the syllabus, quality of teaching or instructions and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the course should not disturb the decision taken by the University."

13. There is no material placed on record on the basis of which, it

could be said that decision of the respondent-University in not

considering the petitioner's qualification as eligible.

14. The respondents have prescribed 10+2+3 pattern and

admittedly petitioner has not qualified the same, therefore, the petitioner

does not possess the requisite qualification for admission in LLB course

and, as such, the respondents have rightly rejected his case for admission

to LLB.

15. The University otherwise also is bound by its Statute and

cannot be expected to go against the same nor can it be directed to

proceed against its own Statute. In A. P. Christians Medical

Educational Society Etc. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & anr.;

AIR 1986 1490, it has been held as under:-

"We do not think that we can possibly acceed to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws."

16. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appellate committee

has rightly held that the petitioner is not eligible for LLB three years

course as his mode of acquiring the qualifying Degree was not a 10+2+3

pattern. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 02.06.2021 Ram Murti

Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes/No

RAM MURTI 2021.06.04 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document