[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmi K vs The Principal on 17 December, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
WP No. 37568 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 37568 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI K.,
AGED 42 YEARS,
KNOWN IN OTHER NAME
SMT. LAKSHMI BG
GARUDADRI NILAYA, #59/1A,
1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SUNNAKALPALYA,
KENGERI, BANGALORE
KARNATAKA - 560 060.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALASUBBAIAH B. G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL
ARUNODAYA INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES
NO.57, 60 FEET RING ROAD,
Digitally MARIYAPPANA PALYA, JNANABHARATHI POST
signed by BENGALURU - 560 056
CHANDANA
BM 2. THE REGISTRAR
Location: KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY(KSLU)
High Court NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI
of Karnataka
OF KARNATAKA - 580 025
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE PETITIONERS ADMISSION
TO THE 3 YEAR LL.B.COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2025-26
AND PERMIT HER TO REMIT THE EXAMINATION FEES FORTHWITH
AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
WP No. 37568 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents
to regularize the Petitioner's admission to the 3-Year
LL.B. Course for the academic year 2025-26 and
permit her to remit the examination fees forthwith;
2. Directing the Respondents to withdraw/recall any
verbal rejection of the Petitioner's admission;
3. Alternatively, direct the Respondents to produce the
alleged rejection order, if any, issued by KSLU or any
statutory authority, failing which the admission shall
stand confirmed;
4. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Though several contentions have been urged by both
sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy
between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the
judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Kumar P.S., Vs. The State of Karnataka and ors., in WP
No.29128/2025 dated 16.10.2025, wherein it was held as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) To issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari or such other writ or direction quashing the
impugned endorsement dated 04.09.2025 bearing
application Ref.No.LW002S250002659 issued by 2nd
respondent vide Annexure-A.
(b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing
the 2nd respondent to issue an Eligibility Certificate to
the petitioner and allow him for admission in 3rd
Respondent College pursuant to the application dated
19.08.2025 made by the petitioner vide Annexure-H.
(c) Pass any such other order/s or direction that
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of this case."
2. 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.
3. 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 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.
4. In Sri.Naveenkumar K.V.'s case, (supra),
this Court has held as under:
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:
i) Issue a Writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
bearing Application ref No.LW002S240001257
st
dated 21.09.2024 issued by the 1 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
st
colleges of the 1 respondent, in the interest of
justice and equity.
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."
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No.1
and perused the material on record.
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.
"4. In Abubakar's case (supra), this
Court has held as under:
"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
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
preferred this writ petition.
2. The contention of the respondents is that
the petitioner ought to have passed Pre-university
th
after passing 10 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.
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:
"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."
4. Rule 2(viii) of the Rules defines 'First
Degree' as under:
"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."
5. Rule 5 deals with eligibility for admission
for a Law Degree Course and it reads as under:
"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
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
(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
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."
6. Based on the Rules, the first respondent-
University has framed the Regulations governing
three year LL.B. Degree Course in Law (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Regulations'). Regulation 7
reads as under:
"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.
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
(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.
(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."
7. Based on the said Regulations, the first
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:
"A) 3 year LL.B. course :
(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.
(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.
(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 13th
October
2020.
Explanation:-
(i) An applicant who has passed the 3
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
(ii) The applicant who has passed the
qualifying examination U.G.degree in a
single sitting examination is not eligible for
admission to 3 yr LL.B Law Course of
KSLU, Hubballi.
*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.
Explanation:
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."
8. By bare reading of the Rules of Bar
Council of India and the Regulations of the first
respondent- University, 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
th th
excludes I.T.I course in lieu of PUC or 11 and 12
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 Pre-university or 12th standard. It should
consider I.T.I course for two years as equivalent to
th
Pre-University or 12 standard. Further, the
notification also does not expressly state that I.T.I
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
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
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.1-University"
5. So also, in N.Dinesh's case (supra), it is held
as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
an application to the respondent-University 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.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-
University.
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:
"8. By bare reading of the Rules of Bar
Council of India and the Regulations of the first
respondent-University, 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 11th and
12th 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
year Law Degree Course for the academic year
2020-21 cannot insist upon that the students
should have only studied in Pre-University or 12th
standard. It should consider ITI course for two
years as equivalent to Pre-University or 12th
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".
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.
5. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The impugned endorsement
Annexure-A dated 05.05.2023 is
hereby quashed.
3. The respondent-University is
directed to issue eligibility
certificate in favour of the
petitioner certifying that the
petitioner is eligible for admission
to *5 years LLB course for the
academic year 2023-24. The said
exercise shall be completed
forthwith.
In view of disposal of the writ
petition, pending IA, if any, does
not survive for consideration and
accordingly disposed of."
6. In view the aforesaid judgments of
this Court, the present petition deserves to
be allowed.
7. Accordingly, I pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
ORDER
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
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.
ii) Impugned endorsement at Annexure-
R dated 21.09.2024 is hereby quashed;
iii) First respondent is directed to issue
eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner
within a period of fifteen days from today."
5. So also, in Rakesh Shetty's case (supra), it is held
as under:
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:-
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).
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.
2. The petitioner had completed his SSLC in the year
1997 and Job-Oriented Pre-University Diploma in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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 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.
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
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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:-
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÀASÉå:ME78 ¦ºÉZïJ¸ï2020 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ
«zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.05.2022
EªÀjAzÀ:
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
M¼ÁqÀ½vÀ E-ÁSÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
EªÀjUÉ:
ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj,
£ÀA.02, £ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-01.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
¦.¹(¹«-ï) ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½JUÀ ¦AiÀÄĹ CxÀªÁ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À
«zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, PÀĪÀiÁj ¢Ã¥À PÉ.¦.
EªÀgÀÄ 03 ªÀµÀðzÀ r¥ÉÆèêÀÄ E£ï PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ¸ÉÊ£ïì
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVzÀÄÝ,
¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¦AiÀÄĹUÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£À
«zÁåºÀðvÉAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
1) ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:22/£ÉêÀÄPÁw-2/2020-21,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.08.2020 & 01.10.2020 .
2) EzÉà ¸ÀªÀĸÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.07.2020.
*****
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: E¦ 19 n«E 2019, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.08.2021 gÀ°è
DzÉò¹gÀĪÀAvÉ, FUÁUÀ-Éà £ÉêÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢ DzÉñÀ ¤jÃPÉëAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ
eÉN¹AiÀÄÄ ¦AiÀÄĹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä CAvÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:
Er 33 n«E 2021, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.09.2021 CA±À (1)gÀAvÉ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët
E-ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ ¦AiÀÄĹ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2)£Éà CA±ÀzÀ°è
¸ÀÆa¹zÀAvÉ 2015QÌAvÀ »A¢£À ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀzÀj r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀjUÉ PɦJ¸ïE
ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ E-ÁSÁ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÀ¼À°è PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¨sÁµÉ vÉÃUÀðqÉ ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ
vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E-ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
2015QÌAvÀ »A¢¤AzÀ-Éà ¥ÀƪÀð£ÀéAiÀiÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¦AiÀÄĹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ
¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ ²PÀët E-ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèªÀiÁ eÉN¹AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
2018, 2019, 2020gÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ 2015QÌAvÀ »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ
¥ÀƪÁð£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¦AiÀÄĹ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ
¤ÃqÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.
L.n.L C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ 2020-21gÀ°è ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹ CxÀªÁ J£ï.L.N.J¸ï £ÀqɸÀĪÀ
(MAzÀÄ ¨sÁµÁ PÉÆøïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è) ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVzÀ°è
¦AiÀÄĹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀuɸÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ªÉÄð£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ L.n.L ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÈw
²PÀët PÉÆøÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (eÉ.N.¹)/¦AiÀÄĹ UÉ vÀvÀìªÀiÁ£ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀ EvÀgÉ J-Áè
¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ½UÀÆ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀAvÉ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w½¸À®Ä
¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ,
(¨ÁtzÀgÀAUÀAiÀÄå J£ï.Dgï.)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
M¼ÁqÀ½vÀ E-ÁSÉ (¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ©)
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.
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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
particularly, para 11 thereof, which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:-
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.
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 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.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
8. The short question that would arise for
consideration is:-
"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')?".
9. The said Rule 5 is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:-
"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.
(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
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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 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."
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 (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.
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
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
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 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.
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
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
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.
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.
16. In the present case, the petitioner having done his
job oriented course, the Job Oriented course was
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
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.
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 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.
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.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
19. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued and the endorsement
dated 18.10.2024 by respondent No.2 at
Annexure-A is quashed.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue eligibility
certificate in pursuance of the observations
made hereinabove within a period of 15 days of
receipt of copy of this Order."
6. In view of the aforesaid judgments of this
Court, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
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.
ii) Impugned endorsement at Annexure-A
dated 04.09.2025 is hereby quashed;
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
iii) 2nd respondent is directed to issue
Eligibility Certificate in favour of the
petitioner within a period of fifteen days
from today.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
said order passed by this Court in Kumar P.S.'s case is pending
before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1060/2025.
4. However, since there is no interim order in the said writ
appeal, the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of
the aforesaid judgment in Kumar P.S.'s case.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in
terms of Kumar P.S., Vs. The State of Karnataka and
ors., in WP No.29128/2025 dated 16.10.2025.
ii) The respondents are directed to permit the
petitioner to remit the examination fees and take up the
ensuing examination. It is further directed that the
payment of fees by the petitioner and writing of the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53917
HC-KAR
examination by the petitioner would be subject to the
final outcome of Writ Appeal No.1060/2025.
Hand delivery of this order is permitted.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
