Karnataka High Court
Yuvaraj S/O Jadeyappa K vs The Karnataka State Law University on 11 June, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105810 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 105249 OF 2024
IN W.P. NO. 105810/2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
YUVARAJ S/O. JADEYAPPA K.,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. BYLUVADDIGERE VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAIKIRAN B. NAIK AND
SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
2. THE PRINCIPAL
Location: HIGH SHRIYA PRIYA LAW COLLEGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DADEGAL VILLAGE, KOPPAL,
DHARWAD
BENCH DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583238.
3. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARIAT TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
1ST GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. ARCHANA MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R4 & R5; R2-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY, THEREBY REJECTING TO ISSUE ELIGIBILITY
CERTIFICATE AND NOT PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE
LLB, VIDE ANNEXURE-F REF NO.LW002S240001062 DATED
21/09/2024 CONSEQUENTIALLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-
UNIVERSITY TO ISSUE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.105249/2024 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JAVED S/O. ANJUM MULLANI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KHARADEGALLI, NIPPANI,
TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHIT NAGESH LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
21, ROUSE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
SUTAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.
4. THE ASGSS MAHATMA GANDHI LAW COLLEGE,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL,
ANANT VIDHYA NAGAR, NH4 SANKESHWAR,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001,
6. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1.
7. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARIAT TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS, 1ST GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. ARCHANA MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R5-R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
I) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY
DECLARE HIM ELIGIBLE FOR THE ADMISSION TO 3 YEAR
L.L.B LAW COURSE UNDER THE KSLU UNIVERSITY R.NO.3
VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO ANNEXURE-F.
II) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT
ADMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO 3 YEAR L.L.B LAW
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-25 IN THE LAW
COLLEGE OF R.NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO ANNEXURE-L.
III) A FURTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO
GRANT THE PETITIONER SANADH/CERTIFICATE OF
PRACTICE ON HIS SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LAW
COURSE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF R.NO.3 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, who are students are aggrieved by
denial of admission to the three years LL.B Course in the
respective colleges coming under the Karnataka State
Law University ('KSLU' for short), have knocked the doors
of this Court to permit them to pursue the three years
LL.B course. Hence, these writ petitions.
2. The petitioner/Sri Yuvaraj in WP
No.105810/2024 has sought for the following reliefs:
Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other Writ or direction and quash the
Endorsement issued by the Respondent
University, thereby rejecting to issue eligibility
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
certificate and not permitting the petitioner to
pursue LLB, vide Annexure-F Ref.
NO.LW002S240001062 dated 21/09/2024,
consequently, direct the Respondent-
University to issue eligibility certificate, in the
interest of justice and equity.
3. The petitioner/Sri Javed in WP 105249/2024 has
sought for the following reliefs:
A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ, order or direction thereby directing the
Respondents to consider the educational
qualifications of the petitioner and thereby
declare him eligible for the admission to 3 year
LLB law course under the KSLU university
R.No.3 vide Annexure-A to Annexure-F;
A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ directing the Respondents to grant
admission to the petitioner to 3 year LLB law
course for the academic year 2024-25 in the
law college of R.No.4 vide Annexure K to
Annexure L;
A further Writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other writ directing the Respondent No.2
to grant the petitioner sanadh/certificate of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
practice on his successful completion of law
course from the university of R.No.3.
4. The grievance of the petitioners in both these writ
petitions, is one and the same i.e., they have been
denied admission to the three years LL.B Course in the
respective colleges coming under the KSLU.
5. In the case of petitioner/Yuvaraj,
respondents/KSLU and Shiva Priya Law College denied
admission to three years LL.B Course on the ground that
the I.T.I. Course possessed by him is not equivalent to
PUC since certain essential requirements /conditions are
not fulfilled.
6. In the case of petitioner/Sri Javed, the
respondents/KSLU and ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law
College denied admission to three years LL.B Course on
the ground that he did not possess 10 + 2 matriculation
documents or other equivalent educational qualification
and that the educational qualification secured by him from
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University
('YCMOU' for short), Nashik is not a valid educational
qualification to grant him admission to the said law college
coming under the KSLU.
7. As both these petitions involve common question
of law, these Petitions are taken up together for disposal
with consent of all parties.
(i) Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.105249/2024
8. The petitioner/Javed passed a pre-preparatory test
to secure admission to the degree course in the YCMOU,
Nashik which is a preparatory course to take admission to
degree course in the open university of YCMOU for those
students who do not possess 10 + 2 matriculation or other
equivalent educational qualification and he secured 50%
marks in the said preparatory/PPT test conducted by
YCMOU, Nashik, on 8.6.2006. On successful completion of
the said preparatory program, Javed enrolled for
Bachelor's degree in Arts (B.A.) in English from YCMOU,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Nashik. Javed secured admission to the 1st year B.A.
Course in the year 2014; completed the 2nd year B.A. in
December 2023; and the 3rd year BA in May-June 2024.
8.1 After petitioner/Javed completed the B.A. degree
through Open University, he wanted to pursue his career
in law for graduation in law and therefore he approached
the 4th respondent - ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law college,
which is affiliated to KSLU. Upon approaching the college,
initially petitioner was directed to approach the KSLU,
whereby KSLU and the college denied him admission to
three years' LL.B Course as he did not possess 10+2
matriculation documents or other equivalent educational
qualification and that the educational qualification pursued
by him from the YCMOU is not a valid educational
qualification to secure admission to the said law course in
4th respondent - college coming under the KSLU.
8.2 Aggrieved by the act of the college and the KSLU
rejecting him admission to the three years' LL.B course,
Javed is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
a direction to the respondent college as well as the
University to consider his educational qualification and
thereby, declare him eligible for admission to the three
years' LL.B Course under KSLU and consequently to grant
him admission in the respondent No.4 college coming
under KSLU. He has also sought for a direction to the
Karnataka State Bar Council to grant him Sanad/certificate
of practice on his successful completion of the law course
from the KSLU. Well this prayer would arise if he secures
admission and completes the 3 year LL.B course.
(ii) Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.105810/2024
9. In the present case, the petitioner - Yuvaraj has
completed SSLC from Government High School,
Chittavadagi, Hosapete in the year 2012. Thereafter, he
pursued two years ITI Course from the Vishweshwaraiya
Private ITI, Hosapete, Bellary in the year 2014.
Thereafter, Yuvaraj opted to study three years B.A. degree
from Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraja University, Bellary,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
which he completed in the year 2022. Thereafter with an
intent to pursue three years' LLB course, he applied to
respondent No.2 - Shiva Priya Law College, Koppal in
Karnataka for admission to three years' Law Course.
However, on receipt of his application, which was
eventually sent to KSLU, the same came to be rejected on
the ground that the petitioner - Yuvaraj did not fulfil
certain conditions as required by the college and
University regulations.
10. I have heard Sri Saikiran B Naik and Sri Shiva
Shirur, learned counsels for petitioner in W.P.
No.105810/24 ; Sri Rohit N Latur, learned counsel for
petitioner in W.P. No.105249/24 as well as learned counsel
- Sri. Rajashekhar Burji on behalf of BCI, Sri Pavan B
Doddatti for KSLU; learned counsel - Sri Archana
Magadum for Karnataka State Bar Council; learned
counsel - J.M. Gangadhar, learned AAG a/w Sri Praveen
Uppar, AGA and Sri. P.N. Hatti, HCGP for State so also
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
learned counsel - Sri Chetan T Limibikai for respondent
No.4 college in W.P. No.105249/2024.
(iii) Arguments advanced by learned counsel - Sri Rohit
N. Latur for petitioner/Javed in W.P. No.105249/2024
11. It is the vehement contention of leaned counsel
- Sri Rohit N. Latur that petitioner/Sri Javed completed his
regular schooling through Maharashtra State Board
School and thereafter he failed in 10th Standard, due to
which, he opted to complete 10th standard and PUC
through Open University at YCMOU, Nashik and thereby he
completed his preparatory program which is equivalent to
10+2 as per notification issued by Government of
Maharashtra. It is also contended that UGC has given
recognition to the courses which are being conducted by
YCMOU, Nashik.
11.1 Learned counsel further contends that after
successful completion of the schooling and pre-preparatory
programme of 10+2 through open university, the
petitioner - Javed completed B.A. English degree in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
YCMOU, Nashik and thereafter he applied for admission to
the three years LL.B course in the respondent No.4 -
ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College, affiliated to the
KSLU, which denied the admission to the three years LL.B
course and the same is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to
the regulations of the Bar council of India ('BCI' for short)
11.2 Learned counsel further contends that Rule -
5 of the Bar council of India Rules was subject matter of
interpretation before the three judge Bench of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Vishnu .v. BCI and others in
W.P. No.6752/2021 decided on 4.5.2022, wherein the
Bombay High Court discussed the following points:
i) Whether the preparatory course under
clause 4.1 (1) of YCMOU, Nashik could be
treated as equivalent to HSC ?
ii) Whether acquiring the B.Com degree
under distant learning programme of the
YCMOU, Nashik on the basis of preparatory
programme of six months could tantamount
to a candidate having acquired 10+2+3
sequential educational qualification so as to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
be eligible for acquiring admission to three
years LL.B degree course ?
11.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said
judgment, which read as under:
"25. The aspect of basic qualification
appearing in explanation would differ from
University to University and course to course.
The basic qualification for first degree course in
an Open University would be the preparatory
course and/or 12th Standard passed. The basic
qualification as is appearing in explanation will
have to be given a wider interpretation and
cannot be given a restricted interpretation. If
restricted interpretation is given to the words
"basic qualification" appearing in explanation,
then the same would not be in tune and
consonance with the main rule. A person who
has completed the preparatory programme
course from Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra
Open University, Nashik and who has also
completed 10 + 2 from any Board, is eligible for
admission to the first degree course in branch of
Arts, Commerce, Science. If the restrictive
meaning is given to the basic qualification, then
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
a student who has passed graduation from the
open University and had earlier completed 10 +
2 from S.S.C. Board would be eligible for
admission to the three year law course, but a
person who has been admitted to the first
degree course in the open University after
passing the preparatory programme for the said
course, would not be eligible. The same cannot
be the intention of the legislature.
26. If such a restricted meaning is given to
the words "basic qualification", the very purpose
of proviso would stand frustrated. Proviso has
clarified that an applicant who has passed the
first degree certificate after prosecuting studies
in distance or correspondence method, shall also
be considered as eligible for admission. The
explanation cannot be interpreted in a manner it
would negate the proviso and the main section.
The explanation cannot take away the statutory
right with which a person is bestowed with under
the rule. For explanation to harmoniously
survive with the proviso and the main rule will
have to be interpreted in a manner that the
basic qualification would mean the basic
qualification as provided by that University for
obtaining admission to the graduation/
postgraduation or 10 + 2 course. Any other
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
interpretation would lead to an anomalous
situation and would render the Rule 5 and the
proviso otiose and superfluous."
11.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws
the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Harish .N -vs- BCI and
others in Writ Appeal No.5142/2016 and connected
matters, wherein at paragraphs 12 and 13 it is held as
under:
12. The reasons assigned by the Law University in
disapproving the admission of the appellants are
tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Reasons for
No W.A.No/s. Name & Qualification not
course approving
admission
1. WA HARISH.N. Upto 10th +2 private
No.5142/2016 Standard- study/ Open
& WAs Regular schooling
3 year LL.B
No.921-
School
II PUC - as
a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
student in
the
Bangalore
University
2. WA MURALI.A. Upto 10th +2 private
No.5143/2016 Standard- study/ Open
& WAs Regular schooling
No.1060- 3 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
student in
the
Bangalore
University
3. WAs No.4303- RAGHAVENDR Upto 10th +2
05/2017 & A Standard- private/10th/
WAs No.4318- Regular 12th Degree
3 year LL.B All Open
20/2017 School
schooling
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a
regular
student in
the
Mangalore
University
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
AKSHATH Upto 10th +2
KUMAR Standard- private/10th/
Regular 12th Degree
3 year LL.B All Open
School
schooling
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
student in
the
Mangalore
University
SHABA Upto 10th +2
Standard- private/10th/
Regular 12th Degree
All Open
3 year LL.B School
schooling
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
student in
the
Mangalore
University
4. WAs No.790- TARUNESH Upto 10th +2 private
794/2017 & Standard-
WAs No. 795- Regular
799/2017 5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
student
VISHNU Upto 10th +2 private
DALMIA Standard-
Regular
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
In a open
schooling
KUMARI Upto 10th
KAVYA Standard-
Regular +2 private
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
GAUTHAM Upto 10th
KISHAN H Standard-
Regular +2 private
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
MOHAMMAD Upto 10th +2 private
ANWAR Standard-
Regular
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
ANANTHA Upto 10th +2 private
PADMANABHA Standard-
Regular
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
KUMARI Upto 10TH +2 private
SAHANA Standard-
SHENOY.K. Regular
School
5 year LL.B
II PUC -
as a private
student
MARIAM Upto 10th +2 private
FARISA Standard-
ABDHULLA Regular
School
5 year LL.B
II PUC -
as a private
student
5. WA RAVI.S. Upto 10th +2 private
No.4301/2017 Standard- study
3 year LL.B Regular
School
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
student in
the
Bangalore
University
6. WA MS.SHAILIKA Upto 10th +2 private
No.4306/2017 Standard-
& WAs Regular
No.4316- 5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
7. WAs No.5168- BHUVANESWA Upto 11th PUC studied
69/2016 RI Standard- at NIOS &
Regular there is no
5 YEAR proof of 2
School
INTEGRATED years study
LL.B. 12TH at +2 level
Standard
Open
schooling
RATNESH Upto 9th +2 through
KUMAR Standard- open
GAUTAM Regular schooling
School
5 YEAR
INTEGRATED 10th
LL.B. Standard-
Open
schooling
11th
Standard-
regular
student
In NIOS
12th
Standard-
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
open
schooling
13. Analysis of the qualifications of the appellants
shows that they have appeared as private
th
candidates either in their 10 , '+2' or 'first
graduation' examination. It is relevant to record
that, the appellants have attended classes in the
School and appeared for the 10th, '+2' or 'first
graduation' examination as private candidates or
through open schooling method. Therefore, they
cannot be classified as applicants, who have
obtained their respective '+2' or 'graduation/post
graduation' qualification directly, without having
any basic qualification. The resultant position is
that, the applicants' cases would fall within the
'proviso' to Rule 5 of BCI Rules and the
'Explanation' shall have no application.
Consequently, they shall be entitled to pursue their
3 year or 5 year Law courses."
11.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of N.B.
Bhargavi & others .vs. KSLU & others in W.P.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Nos.56941-56946/2014, wherein the learned Single Judge
of this Court observed at paragraphs 19 and 23 as under:
"19. In the light of the said judgment, the
explanation has to be given effect to, as a whole
to make it consistent with the dominant object
of the Rules in order to make it meaningful and
purposeful. 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
University system, the phrase "directly without
having any basic qualification for prosecuting
such studies" ought not have employed, these
words cannot be set at naught; It cannot be
read in isolation. A reading of the explanation as
a whole, suggests that 10+2 or graduation/post-
graduation through open university system
would not be a bar for admission to law courses
but the embargo placed is in obtaining such
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
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
the queue at their convenience i.e., not
completing 10+2, directly completing graduation
through open university cannot be considered as
eligible for admission to 3 years LL.B., course. In
a case relating to the candidate wherein, the
student studied Senior Secondary school and I
year PUC in the regular schooling but II PUC in
private, this Court held that there is no bar for
the candidate to complete +2 course in private
(W.P.No.10458/2016 DD 29.08.2016). Applying
the same principles, this Court in
(W.P.No.55888/2014) has held that studying in
private for II PUC would not be a bar to the
student to get admission to 5 year Law course.
As a sequel, it cannot be said that a candidate
who has completed the 3 years degree
course/first degree through open university
system after successfully completing 10+2 in a
regular schooling is not eligible for admission to
3 year Law course. Likewise, the students who
have obtained +2 certificate through Open
University system without having basic
qualification i.e. 10th are not eligible for
admission in five year law course. The
clarification issued of the Bar Council of India
dated 03.11.2015 addressed to the Upa
lokayukta is binding on the BCI. It is considering
the complaint of six students of law college as
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
regards the eligibility of students for admission
to law courses alleging refusal of examination
fee by the Karnataka State Law University, the
clarification was issued. Based on the said
clarification, colleges have admitted the students
for law courses. Resisting such a clarification
has become unavailable.
23. In this background, the factual aspects
of the cases involved herein, are analysed as
follows:
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
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
(equivalent to II PUC) and has secured required
percentage of marks to join the B.A., LL.B
course. The university ignoring the marks
secured through open university refused the
admission, which cannot be sustained. Petitioner
No.6 is eligible for admission to 5 years LL.B
course.
W.P.No.51770/2015 - the petitioner had failed
in Higher Secondary school examination, then
completed successfully the same through open
university, further studied PUC in CBSE and
graduation through Manasa Bharati University
[three years course]. There is no inhibition for
the university to approve the admission to 3
year LL.B. course subject to recognition of
Manasa Bharti University.
W.P.No.57599/2015 - the petitioner
completed 10th standard and I year PUC in
regular course. II PUC in private and degree in
regular course, as such the University cannot
deny the approval of admission only for the
reason that he has completed II PUC through
private. The University is directed to approve the
admission of the petitioner for three years LL.B.
course.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
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. 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.
W.P.58495/2016 - the petitioner has completed
the Higher Secondary schooling, +2 through
open university (Degree bridge course
equivalent to 10+2) and the three years degree
course through CMJ University, Meghalaya. The
petitioner is entitled to admission for three years
law course subject to production of recognition
certificate of CMJ university, Meghalaya.
W.P.63750/2016 - the petitioner is a OBC
candidate. She has completed her 10th
standard, 3 years Diploma course and BBA
[three years course] through distance education.
There is no dispute regarding the eligibility as
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
per the distance education is concerned. The
proviso to Rule 5 makes it manifestly clear that a
candidate who has completed +2 Higher
Secondary pass certificate or I degree certificate
after prosecuting studies in distance or
correspondence method, shall be considered as
eligible for admission. The reason for denying
admission for the candidate is with respect to
low percentage. Indisputably, the candidate has
secured 42.36%. Rule 7 of the BCI Rules
prescribes 42% of the total marks in case of
OBC students. Hence, the university shall
approve the admission of the petitioner to the 3
years LLB., course.
11.6 It is further contention of learned counsel that
in view of the judgments rendered by the Full Bench of the
Bombay High Court and the Division Bench of this Court
cited hereinabove, the petitioner/Javed is entitled and
eligible for admission to three years' LL.B Course as per
the regulations of the Bar Council of India. Learned
counsel also contends that notification dated 20.5.2011
issued by Government of Maharashtra has granted
equivalence of 10th and 12th to those who have passed
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
preparatory program and first year of graduation and
therefore, the petitioner/Javed cannot be denied admission
on the ground that the preparatory program done prior to
his graduation of 1st BA to be not equivalent to PUC or 10
+ 2. In view of the judgments rendered by the Full Bench
of the Bombay High Court and the Division Bench of this
Court cited supra, the same benefit would have to be
extended to the petitioner/Javed also. On these grounds,
he seeks to allow the petition and consequently direct the
respondents to declare petitioner/Javed as eligible for
admission to three years' LL.B Course under the KSLU.
(iv) Arguments advanced by learned counsel -
Sri Saikiran B Naik for the petitioner/Yuvaraj in
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Yuvaraj
vehemently contends that the impugned endorsement
issued by the respondent university is perverse, illegal,
arbitrary and in violation to the BCI Rules and Regulations.
It is contended by him that in order to be eligible for
admission to a three years' LL.B Course, firstly, a student
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
is required to have passed three years Bachelor's degree
program from the recognized university and secondly, he
should have obtained 10+2 secondary/higher secondary
schooling. It is further contended by the learned counsel
that neither the rules nor the regulations of the BCI
excludes ITI course in lieu of PUC or 11th & 12th standards
when such a student wants to pursue three years' LL.B
degree course. It is also contended by him that the
petitioner/Yuvaraj having studied two years ITI course,
which is equivalent to PUC/11th & 12th before obtaining
the valid three years degree from the recognized
University, is eligible for admission for three years LL.B
Course. Therefore, the respondents rejecting the
admission on the ground of eligibility is perverse, illegal
and contrary to the BCI rules and regulations. He further
contends that when the BCI itself provides ITI to be
equivalent to PUC, the college or the Law University
cannot insist on the students to have studied and
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
completed only pre-university or 11th & 12th standards
prior to their completion of 1st year Bachelor degree.
12.1 It is also further contended by the learned
counsel - Sri Naik that the Circular referred to by the
respondent-University prescribes a certificate in a
language and a subject from the PU board, whereas
petitioner - Yuvaraj completed his three years' graduation
from a recognized university by studying a language and
other subjects during his course of study in the university.
Therefore, the petitioner - Yuvaraj having studied the
language and the subject in the graduation, the requisite
conditions sought in the circular are fulfilled. Therefore,
rejection of application of the petitioner - Yuvaraj for
admission to three years' LL.B Course is highly arbitrary,
illegal, perverse and hence the same requires to be
quashed and consequently to issue a direction to the
respondents - KSLU and the college to permit the
petitioner - Yuvaraj to pursue three years' LL.B course as
he fulfils all the requirements as per the regulations and
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
the circular. On these grounds, learned counsel - Sri
Naik seeks to allow the petition and consequently quash
the endorsement issued by the respondent - University
and permit the petitioner to pursue three years' LL.B
Course.
(v) Arguments advanced by learned counsel
Sri. Pavan B. Doddati for the respondent - University
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
KSLU contends that the petitioner - Javed claims to have
secured a B.A. degree from the Open University without
having completed the basic qualification of 10 + 2 or PUC,
which is the primary requirement or basic qualification for
admission to three years' LL.B. Course. It is further
contended by learned counsel that admittedly it is the case
of the petitioner - Javed that he has passed preparatory
program directly from YCMOU, Nashik which made him
eligible for pursuing Bachelor's Degree in Arts (B.A.) under
the same university. But the fact remains that the basic
qualification as required as per the Rules of Legal
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Education-2008, is not complied and not fulfilled.
Therefore, when the petitioner does not fulfill the
necessary mandatory legal requirements as contemplated
under the Rules of Legal Education - 2008 formulated by
the BCI, he would not be eligible as a matter of right to
pursue his three years' LL.B Course.
13.1 Learned counsel further contends that the BCI
is a statutory body constituted by virtue of Section 4 of
the Advocates Act, 1961. He further contends that the BCI
being the highest regulatory body of the legal education, it
is entitled to lay down certain standards of legal education
in the legal profession. He further contends that on bare
perusal of Sections 7, 15 and 24 of the Advocates Act-
1961, it is seen that the BCI is vested with the rule
making powers for the benefit of the legal profession and
legal education. It is further contended by the learned
counsel that the very purpose of the legislation of the
Rules of Legal Education - 2008 is to improve the
standards of legal profession and legal education.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
13.2 Learned counsel further contends that the
curriculum which was prepared more than a decade ago
had to be revamped to suit it to the present requirement
or bring it in tune with the present day international
standards of legal education and legal practice.
Accordingly, the BCI took up the task of changing the
curriculum in consultation with the University and State
Bar Council and in exercise of its plenary powers, 'Rules of
Legal Education - 2008' were framed, which was approved
and adopted by the BCI in its meeting held on 14.9.2008
vide resolution No.110/2008.
13.3 It is further contended by learned counsel that
the BCI being a regulatory body, considering all these
aspects and in order to have standards of legal education,
formulated the Rules of Legal Education-2008. The BCI is
empowered to formulate legal education rules to insist or
maintain a minimum level of general education to be a
pre-requisite for taking up or studying the law course,
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
mainly three years LL.B course and five years LL.B
Course.
13.4 Learned counsel further contends that in the
present case, we are concerned with the admission to
three years' LL.B course. He contends that the
explanation to Rule 5 prescribes that degrees obtained
through distance education or open university courses are
approved by the BCI. But, the candidates should have the
basic qualification and cannot jump the queue as per their
convenience or to their advantage. He further contends
that explanation to Rule -5 requires that the candidate
should have the basic qualification in order to be qualified
to be admitted to that course. For example, the basic
qualification for a Plus 2 course would be 10th standard
and for a degree course would mean Plus 2 or equivalent
etc., It is further contended that when 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, when a student
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
has not completed 10 + 2 directly and complete the
graduation course through open university, cannot be
considered to be eligible for admission to three years LL.B
course.
13.5 Learned counsel for respondents rely upon the
following judgments in their favour:
a) Judgment rendered by the leaned Single Judge
of this Court in the case of Deepika Bhat -vs-
Union of India and others in Writ Petition
No.19608/2010 dated 13th March 2014.
b) Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Deepika Bhat -vs- Union
of India and others in Writ Appeal
No.1604/2014 dated 29th July, 2015.
(vi) Arguments advanced by learned counsel
Smt. Archana A Magadum for the respondent -
Karnataka State Bar Council
14. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bar
Council contends that the Karnataka State Bar Council is
governed by the rules and regulations formulated by the
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
BCI. She concurs and supports the arguments putforth by
learned counsel - Sri Pavan B. Doddatti for the University.
She also contends that if a student has not fulfilled the
necessary requirements as per the State Bar Council Rules
and Regulations and that of the BCI, then the University
as per the Rules of Legal Education - 2008, is justified in
rejecting the application to pursue three years' LL.B
Course, for want of basic qualification and necessary
requirements as stipulated.
14.1 Learned counsel has produced copy of the
proceedings of the committee constituted for consideration
of applications for enrolment held on 29th September 2014
and relies on clauses (4) and (5) of the said proceedings.
As per clause-(4) of the said proceedings, the candidates
who have obtained a law degree after prosecuting 10+2 or
graduation/post graduation through open university
system directly without having basic qualification for
prosecuting such studies are not eligible for enrolment and
as per clause (5), the candidates who have obtained 3
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
years law degree after prosecuting the first degree
through open university after completing regular 10+2
education are also eligible for enrolment. It is contended
by the learned counsel that both the petitioners viz., Javed
and Yuvaraj would not be eligible to pursue three years
law course, in view of the bar in the Rule-5 of Legal
Education -2008 framed by the BCI.
14.2 In the case of petitioner/Javed, since he did not
possess a basic qualification and the preparatory exam
passed prior to the graduation being not equivalent PUC or
10+2 in the State of Karnataka, is not eligible to pursue
his 3 years' law course in the state of Karnataka as it runs
contrary to the Rules of Legal Edcuation-2008.
(vii) Arguments advanced by learned counsel
Sri. Rajashekhar Burji for respondent-Bar Council of
India.
Learned counsel for the BCI concurs with the
arguments put forth by the counsel for the KSLU and the
State Bar Council. He vehemently contends that in order
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
to elevate the standard of the law graduates, lawyers and
the legal fraternity, the Rules of Legal Education-2008 was
formulated, which was done in consultation with all stake
holders and legal/Educational Experts. He further contends
that the validity of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 has
been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel
further contends that if the student does not possess basic
educational qualification, then he or she would not be
eligible to pursue LLB course. He also submits that in
accordance to the Rules of Legal Education-2008, the BCI
has also made its rules in conformity to the same; which
would be binding to all the State Law Universities.
Learned counsel further contends that when rules are
clearly formulated for legal education, it is not for the
Courts to step into the forte of legislation of rules of
education, neither can it tinker with it in the guise of
judicial review. Learned counsel sustains the rejection of
admission of petitioners to the 3 year Law Course.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
(viii) Consideration
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties,
the judgments relied and perused the records carefully.
16. In order to decide these two cases, it is relevant
to go through Rules of Legal Education-2008 formulated
by the BCI. Chapter II of the rules of legal education
deals with standards of professional legal education. Rule
3 deals with recognized universities; Rule 4 deals with law
courses; and Rule 5 deals with eligibility for admission.
It is relevant to extract Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules of
Legal Education-2008, which are as under:
"3. Recognized Universities
The State Bar Council shall enroll as Advocate
only such candidates, who have passed from
University, approved affiliated Centre of Legal
Education /Departments of the recognized
University as approved by the Bar Council of India.
The Bar Council of India shall notify a list of such
Universities and the Centres of Legal Education
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
prior to the commencement of each academic year
in the prescribed manner and also put in website of
Bar Council of India a list of universities and
Centres of Legal Education as amended from time
to time. Each State Bar Council shall ensure that
applicants passing out from such a recognized
Universities and of its approved affiliated law
Centre of Legal Education are enrolled.
4. Law courses
There shall be two courses of law leading to
Bachelors Degree in Law as hereunder,
(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.
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.
(b) A double degree integrated course
combining Bachelors' Degree course as designed
by the University concerned in any discipline of
study together with the Bachelors' degree course in
law, which shall be of not less than five years'
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
duration leading to the integrated degree in the
respective discipline of knowledge and Law
together.
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.
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.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
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.
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 double degree integrated course cannot be
of less than five years' duration.
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.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
(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
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are
not eligible for admission in the law courses."
17. In order to have standards of legal education,
BCI formulated Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Rule-5(a)
of the said Rules is applicable in the present case and in
the light of Rule-5(a), it has to be seen whether the
petitioners are eligible for entry into Three Year Law
Degree Course.
18. In the case of K. Sakthi Rani -vs- The
Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and others
- (2010)04 MAD CK 0404, the Division Bench of Madras
High Court has culled out several judgments of the Apex
Court at paragraphs 4 to 10, which read as under:
4. In J.S. Jadhav -vs- Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf
and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court has defined legal
profession as follows:
Advocacy is not a craft but a calling; a profession
wherein devotion to duty constitutes the hallmark.
Sincerity of performance and earnestness of
endeavour are the two wings that will bar aloft the
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
advocate to the tower of success. Given these
virtues other qualifications will follow of their own
account. This is the reason why legal profession is
regarded to be a noble one. But it cannot be
allowed to become a sorriest of trades.
5. Similarly, in In Re: Sanjiv Datta and others, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
It is in the hands of the members of the legal
profession to improve the quality of service they
render both to the litigant public and to the courts,
and to brighten their image in the society. The legal
profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is
noble calling and all those who belong to it are its
honourable members. The legal profession is
different from other professions in that what the
lawyers do, affects not only an individual but also
the administration of justice, which is the foundation
of the civilized society. It must not be forgotten
that the legal profession has always been held in
high esteem and its members played enviable role
in public life.
6. A good legal education is a sine quo non for
creating a good lawyer. Such a legal education is
the basis and foundation for creating a good and
competent Judge as well. "
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
7. In P.D. Gupta Vs. Ram Murti and Another, the
Honourable Apex Court observed that the
administration of justice is the concern of Bench and
Bar as well and the Bar is the principal ground for
recruiting Judges.
8. The passage from Harry R.Blythe, 21 Green
Bag, 224, may be usefully quoted in this context:
Great God! the hour has come when we must clear
the legal fields from poison and from fear; we must
remould our standards-build them higher, and clear
the air as though by cleansing fire, weed out the
damming traitors to the law, restore her to her
ancient place of awe.
9. Sri.Dr.C.Radhakrishnan, the first vice-president
of Republic India, has lamented thus:
Our Colleges of law do not hold a place of high
esteem either at home or abroad, nor has law
become an arena of profound scholarship and
enlightened research.
10. It is said, "Legal Education is essentially a multi-
disciplined, multi-purpose education which can
develop the human resources and idealism needed
to strengthen the legal system.... A lawyer, a
product of such education would be able to
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
contribute to national development and social
change in a much more constructive manner.
19. At this juncture, it is to be stated that according
to Dr.B.R. Ambedkar,
Education is a weapon of creation of
mental and educational development,
weapon of eradication of social slavery
of economic development of political
freedom.
The progress of any Society depends on
the progress of education in that society.
Therefore, legal education is all the more important and
plays a pivotal role in shaping the country's legal
system. So also the Graduates from the field of Law
and the lawyers enrolled in the Bar under the
Advocates Act play a crucial role in the development of
the country and also internationally.
20. The grievance of the petitioner/Javed is that
though he has successfully completed preparatory
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
programme prior to the First Degree Certificate
(graduation course), the college and the University have
rejected admission to him to three years' Law Degree
Course on the ground that he has not fulfilled the
necessary requirements and criteria laid down in Rule -
5(a) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008.
21. Factual aspects of the matter are that petitioner
- Javed has completed preparatory programme of six
months in June 2006. On completion of the preparatory
programme, the petitioner enrolled for Bachelor's Degree
in Arts (B.A.) from YCMOU, Nashik in the year 2014 and
completed Bachelor's Degree Course in May-2024. After
completing the Bachelor's Degree - B.A. through Open
University, petitioner - Javed approached the ASGSS
Mahatma Gandhi Law College, which is affiliated to the
KSLU seeking admission to Three Year Law Degree
Course. It is during this time, on perusal of his educational
qualification and qualifying documents, the college and the
University denied giving admission to the petitioner -
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Javed for Three Year Law Degree Course on the ground
that he did not possess 10+2 or other equivalent
educational qualification documents and that the
educational qualification pursed by him from the YCMOU is
not a valid educational qualification and neither is it
recognized or approved by the State of Karnataka and the
KSLU.
22. Apparently, there is no dispute with regard to
the petitioner - Javed having completed the preparatory
programme of six months. It is also a fact that petitioner
- Javed did not possess 10+2 or other equivalent
educational qualification. Further, having failed in the 10th
standard, Javed opted to do preparatory programme
conducted by YCMOU, which is a six months course. On
successful completion of the said preparatory programme,
he earned Bachelor's Degree in Arts (B.A.) from YCMOU,
Nashik.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
23. Now, the question that arises for consideration
is "whether the educational qualification secured by
petitioner - Javed would entitle him to take up three years'
law degree course as per the eligibility criteria, in the
ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College, which is affiliated to
KSLU ? "
24. In pursuance of the order dated 17th January
2025 passed by this Court, the respondent - State has
filed an affidavit through its Deputy Director, Department
of School Education, Pre-University, wherein it is stated at
paragraphs 3 and 4 as under:
3. I state that, ITI course is equal to PUC or
10+2 in terms of the Government circular dated
27.02.2016. I further state that, along with ITI
course the candidate should complete one
language course and one subject studied and
passed through distance education mode or he
should pass the language exam and one subject
exam, conducted by the PU Board, in that event,
ITI course is equivalent with the PUC or 10 +2.
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
4. I state that, in respect of 'bridge course
preparatory programme conducted by the
'Yashawantharao Chavan Maharashtra Open
University, Nashik' is not considered as
equivalent to PU or 10+2 in the State of
Karnataka. The copy of the circular dated
27.02.2016 is produced herewith and marked as
Document No.1.
25. At this stage, it is appropriate to extract once
again Rule-5(a), Rule-5(b) and Proviso & Explanation to
Rule-5 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 for better
understanding and ready 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
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
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.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
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."
26. In the present case, the petitioner - Javed would
fall within the category of Rule 5(a), which is for Three
Year Law Degree Course. The petitioner - Javed claims to
fall within the proviso to Rule-5 for being eligible for
admission to Three Year Law Degree Course. On a careful
perusal of the Explanation to Rule-5, it is seen that 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.
27. In the case of petitioner - Javed, admittedly he
has done preparatory programme of six months.
Therefore, it is not 10 + 2 course and he has also done
graduation from the YCMOU, which is a open University.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Therefore, under the said circumstances, there would be
requirement of the petitioner - Javed to establish and
place on record and satisfy the college and the University,
wherein he is seeking admission for Three Year Law
Degree Course that he possess 10+2 or other equivalent
educational qualification and that he has done the
graduation from the Open University system with basic
qualification for prosecuting such studies. The petitioner -
Javed has not placed any material before the ASGSS
Mahatma Gandhi Law College or the KSLU for recognizing
the preparatory programme done by him to be equivalent
to 10+2 educational qualification. Though he has produced
the material to show that the State of Maharashtra having
given equivalence to the preparatory programme to 10+2
educational qualification and the UGC having granted
recognition to the courses conducted by the Open
University at YCMOU, Nashik, no material has been
produced by the petitioner to show that the KSLU or the
State of Karnataka recognizing preparatory programme of
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
six months as equivalent to 10+ 2 educational
qualification.
28. In view of the above, the vehement argument
putforth by learned counsel for petitioner-Javed though
sounds very attractive and impressive for consideration,
cannot be appreciated in view of the specific bar provided
in the Explanation to Rule 5. The Explanation to Rule-5
specifically prescribes and mandates that 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 course. In the
Explanation to Rule-5, the wordings used viz., 'basic
qualification' refer to schooling from 1st to 10th standard
and thereafter +2 qualification and if a student obtains the
educational qualification from the Open University, it is
necessary and mandatory to have basic qualification for
prosecuting such degree, failing which the student would
be ineligible for admission to law courses.
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
29. In the case of petitioner - Javed, admittedly he
has done preparatory programme of six months, which is
not recognized to be 10 + 2 course in the State of
Karnataka or by the KSLU and so also neither the KSLU
nor the State of Karnataka has given the equivalent status
to the Preparatory Programme secured by the petitioner as
10 +2.
30. Under the circumstances, I am in agreement
with the learned counsel representing the respondents
that there is a bar prescribed in the Explanation to Rule 5
and there is a clear requirement of basic educational
qualification prescribed in the Rule 5 to be eligible to take
admission to the Law Degree Course and the same having
not been fulfilled, the respondents are justified in rejecting
the petitioner - Javed's admission to the Three Year Law
Degree Course.
31. Now coming to the case of petitioner -
Yuvaraj, he claims to have completed SSLC from the
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
Government High School, Chittavadagi, Hosapete and
pursued ITI course from the Vishweshwaraiya Private ITI,
Hosapete, Bellary and thereafter completed B.A. Degree
from Vijayanagara Sri Krishadevaraja University, Bellary.
Thereafter, petitioner - Yuvaraj applied to Shivapriya Law
College, Koppal for pursuing Three Year Law Degree
Course. However, the law college and the KSLU rejected
the application of petitioner - Yuvaraj on the ground that
he has not fulfilled eligibility conditions for admission to
Three Year Law Degree Course.
32. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner -
Yuvaraj has not done PUC or ('+2') after completing SSLC.
He has completed the ITI Course under the Craftsman
Training Scheme in the engineering trade of Electrician.
The subjects that are taken up by the petitioner - Yuvaraj
in the ITI course are: 1) Practical; 2) Trade Theory; 3)
Workshop Cal & Science; 4) Engineering Drawing; 5)
Employability Skill. Admittedly, National Trade Certificate
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
will be issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of
India.
33. Now, the point for consideration is whether the
SSLC and ITI course completed by the petitioner - Yuvaraj
can be considered as equivalent to 10 +2 qualification?.
34. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mr. Abubakar
S/o MD Irgan Sab -vs- Karantaka State Law
University and others in Writ Petition No.200642/2021
(EDN-AD), wherein a similar situation of an ITI student
after completion of graduation seeking admission for Three
Year Law Degree Course arose for consideration and it was
allowed by this Court directing the respondents therein to
admit the petitioner therein to the Three Year LL.B course.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
the case of Sri Bharath Kumar -vs- KSLU in Writ
Petition No.106322/2023 (EDN-RES), wherein a similar
situation of an ITI student after completion of graduation
seeking admission for Three Year Law Degree Course
arose for consideration and it was allowed by this Court
and the student therein was directed to be admitted to
Three Year Law Degree Course subject to fulfilling other
eligibility criteria.
36. In the light of the principles enunciated in the
above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
for allowing the present petition applying the principle of
pari materia with a direction to the respondents to permit
the petitioner - Yuvaraj to enroll for Three Year Law
Degree Course.
37. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for
petitioner and has filed a memo relying upon the Circular
dated 27.2.2018 issued by the Government of Karnataka,
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
wherein subject was 'clarification regarding equivalent
educational qualifications/ Courses for SSLC, PUC and
Degree/Graduate level education'. In the said circular, it
is stated that Three Years Diploma Course or Two Years
ITI course or Two Years Vocational Diploma
(JOC/JODC/JLDC) is equivalent to PUC subject to the
condition that such candidate should complete one
language course and one subject studied and passed
through distance education mode or he should pass one
language exam and one subject exam conducted by the
Pre-University Board.
38. Learned counsel for the respondent has also
relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Krishnamurthy D.H. and Another v.
State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition
No.24206/2021 (S-KAT), wherein in similar circumstances,
it is held that the petitioners therein having not fulfilled
the requirement of passing one language course and one
curriculum subject (through distance education mode), the
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
job oriented Pre-University Diploma done by the
petitioners therein cannot be considered equivalent to PUC
and accordingly dismissed the said petition.
39. In view of the above, the plea made by the
petitioner-Yuvaraj with regard to ITI course being
equivalent to PUC is farfetched and cannot be accepted in
the present case.
40. On careful analysis of the arguments putforth by
the learned counsels, it is apparently clear that the
petitioner - Yuvaraj has done ITI course, but has not
produced any document or material to show that he has
completed one language course and one subject studied
and passed through distance education mode or having
passed language exam and one subject exam conducted
by the PU Board. No doubt, the petitioner - Yuvaraj has
completed his graduation from a regular University and
that by itself would not entitle him to be eligible for Three
Year Law Degree Course. The petitioner - Yuvaraj would
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
be barred under Rule - 5 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008
as he has not completed the basic qualification of 10+2 to
be eligible for enrolment to Three Year Law Degree
Course.
41. I am in agreement with the argument of
learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner -
Yuvaraj has not made out any good or valid case to show
his eligibility for Three Year Law Degree Course, in view of
not having produced the necessary documents as required
by the college and the University.
42. On the question of equivalence of a degree or a
course, it is for the State Government to take the
appropriate decision. This aspect has been dealtwith in
the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others -vs- Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404, wherein it
is held at paragraph-26 as under:
26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013)
3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in
Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170
: (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti
K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule
10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be
permissible to draw an inference that a higher
qualification necessarily presupposes the
acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification.
The prescription of qualifications for a post is a
matter of recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications
as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role
or function of judicial review to expand upon the
ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly,
equivalence of a qualification is not a matter
which can be determined in exercise of the power
of judicial review. Whether a particular
qualification should or should not be regarded as
equivalent is a matter for the State, as the
recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in
Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC
(L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule
under which the holding of a higher qualification
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
could presuppose the acquisition of a lower
qualification. The absence of such a rule in the
present case makes a crucial difference to the
ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad
Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on
12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified
in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather
v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the
learned Single Judge and in coming to the
conclusion that the appellants did not meet the
prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad
Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on
12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
43. I am of the opinion that the judgments in
Mr.Abubakkar .vs. KSLU and in Bharath Kumar .vs.
KSLU passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court
would not be helpful to the case on hand.
44. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties
and on appreciation of the entire material on record in the
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
HC-KAR
light of the principles enunciated in judgments relied upon
by the learned counsels, I am of the considered opinion
that petitioners in these writ petitions have not made out
any good ground or cogent reason to warrant judicial
review or intervention in respect of rejection of their
admission to Three Year Law Degree Course for want of
necessary requirements, basic qualification as enumerated
in Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
45. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
GSS/-
Ct: MCK
