A Bachelor of Commerce degree suffices as a First Degree certificate for law course eligibility, regardless of the job-oriented course's equivalence to Pre-University education.

ORDER :

(Suraj Govindaraj, J.)

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 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 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:-

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 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 Beda