Point of Law: Admission to the petitioners was per-se illegal. Lack of eligibility or qualifying marks hits at the very root and an admission without qualifying marks cannot be considered as irregular.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner No.1 to 3 herein belong to category of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and have secured 43.47%, 44.25% and 42.33% marks respectively in their graduation.

2. For admission in LL.B. three year course, a candidate is required to secure minimum 45% marks in graduation.

3. The Commissionrate of College Education, State of Rajasthan issued an admission policy 2019-20, according to which, the candidates belonging from SC/ST/OBC/MBC and EWS would be given relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks for admission in the law course.

4. After promulgation of the policy, the petitioners considering themselves to be eligible for admission in law course applied for and were granted admission by the Maharishi Dayanand Law College (respondent No.3).

5. According to the petitioners, they disclosed every relevant fact, including the marks secured in graduation when the respondent -College admitted them in the LL.B. Course. It is the assertion of the petitioners that according to admission policy promulgated by the State, they were entitled for 5% relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks and hence, they were enrolled for LL.B. Course.

6. Pursuant to the admission given by the respondent College, the petitioners deposited requisite fees and pursued the course.

7. When the petitioners submitted their examination forms for appearing in the final examination of the first year, the Rajasthan University (to which the College -respondent No.3 is affiliated) did not issue their admission cards.

8. Upon queries being made by the petitioners, their College informed that the University has not allowed the petitioners to take the examination as they having secured less than 45% marks in graduation be admitted in the law course.

9. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their admission and to permit them to complete the law course.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly apprised the Court about the requisite facts and then, argued that the petitioners had disclosed all facts based on which the respondent No.3 – College admitted them in three years law course. He emphasised that the same was done in light of the admission policy of the State Government, which clearly provided that the students belonging to EWS category shall be entitled for 5% relaxation in minimum qualifying marks.

11. Learned counsel argued that though the petitioners were given admission by the respondent College but nevertheless they were enrolled by the University and hence, the respondents cannot take away their right of pursuing the LL.B. Course and leave them in lurch, particularly when the admission policy of the State Government considers them to be eligible for pursuing law course.

12. Learned counsel argued that their College had issued letter to the University and State Government and sought clarification from them, however, no response was given by the State Government. And, when the petitioners underwent Ist year course, the respondents restrained them from appearing in the examination solely on the basis of the communication dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India.

13. It was argued by learned counsel that the order/communication dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India cannot take away petitioners’ right, which have flown to them pursuant to EWS reservation accorded by the State Government and by virtue of the admission policy of 2019-2020.

14. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments :

(i) Prahlad Kumar Vs. University of Raj., reported in 1985 SCC Online Raj. 283;

(ii) Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 399 and

(iii) Sangeeta Shrivastava Vs. Prof. U.N. Singh, 1979 SCC Online Del 202.

15. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent -University argued that the petitioners are ineligible to ge