The judgment emphasizes that the basic qualification for admission to a course varies between universities and courses, and the explanation to a rule must be interpreted in harmony with the main section and proviso.

JUDGMENT

1. With the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Reference is placed before this Full Bench.

2. The Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment and order dtd. 20/8/2021, in the present Writ Petition, has made the following reference to the Larger Bench :-

(a) Whether, the preparatory course under clause 4.1(1) of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik could be treated as being equivalent of HSC ?

(b) Whether, acquiring the B.com. Degree under distant learning programme of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik, on the basis of the preparatory programme of six months, could tantamount to a candidate having acquired 10+2+3 sequential educational qualification so as to be eligible for acquiring admission to the three years LL.B. degree course ?

3. The facts giving rise to this Reference are as follows :-

The petitioner completed Secondary School Certificate Course (S.S.C.) i.e. 10th Standard in the year 1992 from the State Board. He thereafter passed 11th Standard examination (First Year of Junior College - F.Y.J.C.) in 1993. Though he took admission to 12th Standard, in faculty of Arts, has, however, been unsuccessful to pass the examination. Later on in 2008, the petitioner earned Bachelor's degree in Commerce (B.Com.) from Yashwantrao Chavan Open University, Nashik (Open University for short). He could secure admission to First Year B.Com. of the Open University, since he passed pre-programme test to secure admission to the degree course. The petitioner thereafter successfully cleared State Common Entrance Test conducted for an admission for three year LL.B. Course in 2020. He was at Sr.No.1 in the Waiting List of the respondent No.3 - M.P. Law College, Aurangabad. He, was, relying on explanation to Rule 5 of Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, informed by the College that he was not eligible to secure admission to Three Year LL.B. course. He, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to admit him to LL.B. Course.

4. The Division Bench, in its judgment and order dtd. 20/8/2021, observed :-

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed the prospectus with regard to the School of Commerce and Management, Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com) of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik, before us. Reliance is placed on Clause 4 pertaining to the admission procedure for the First Year B.Com. Degree course. Relevant portion of Clause 4 reads as under:-

"4.Admission Procedure for F.Y. B.Com.

4.1 Eligibility Criteria :-

The admission to this programme is based on fulfilling any one of the following criteria:-

(1) Preparatory programme of YCMOU with minimum 40% marks. Certificate Programme for Self Help Group facilitators of YCMOU with minimum 40% marks.

(2) H.S.C. or equivalent examination of Maharashtra or other State HSC Board.

(3) 11 th standard passed (Before 1975).

(4) Government recognised certificate/ diploma of minimum two years after SSC."

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, contends that the admission to this course is based on fulfilling any one criteria. Even if the petitioner has not passed his HSC, by undergoing the preparatory programme of the Open University for six months in which, he has scored 60% marks, he was held eligible for the B.Com. Course.

4. While considering the above submissions, the question that crops up is as to whether, the preparatory programme of the Open University for a period of six months, could be said to be equivalent to HSC of the State Board.

5. We have come across the judgment delivered by this Court (Coram : R.M. Borde and Mangesh S. Patil, JJ) dtd. 10/10/2018 in Writ Petition No.9118/2018 filed by Dattatraya Tanaji Mhetre vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. This case is practically identical to the case of the petitioner in hand. It was concluded that such qualification of graduation on the basis of the pr