Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Sindhu Sharma, J.
(Through Virtual Mode)
Manjeet Kumar – Appellant
Versus
University of Jammu and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.530/2020 and CM No.1180/2020
Decided on : 02-06-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s):Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate
Headnote:
Education-Admission to LL.B. Course-Issue of determining equivalence of degree obtained by petitioner is best left to academic bodies who are academically equipped to opine by considering various aspects-Respondents, who are experts in field, would be justified in declaring ineligible all such candidates, who do not possess same qualification as determination of equivalent qualification for educational admission or service is always to be ascertained by experts in the field and it is for them to decide whether a particular degree or qualification can be substituted for another-In present case, respondents have not accepted qualification of petitioner on 10+3+3 pattern as the same is not in recognized mode and as petitioner has acquired same by way of lateral entry-It is an academic decision which cannot be considered in these proceedings-Court would not go into question of equivalence of a degree of qualification. (Para 11)
Result-Petition dismissed.
Judgment
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of consideration order dated 31.01.2020 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal of the petitioner for admission in LLB of 2019 through JUET has been rejected by the appellate committee.
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner after qualifying matriculation, underwent three years Diploma in civil engineering from J&K Board of Technical Education and subsequently obtained BE (Civil) Degree through correspondence from Vinayaka Mission University. The petitioner thereafter applied for admission in PG LLB (3) years course for the academic year 2019-20 as notified by the Jammu University Entrance Examination 2019 (JUET). The petitioner has participated in the said entrance examination and qualified the same having more meritorious than the last selected candidate.
3. The respondent-University, however did not grant admission to him in the LLB course, therefore, he approached the Dean Academic Affairs, University of Jammu by filing a representation. The petitioner’s representation was rejected on 25.07.2019 by the Dean Academic Affairs, University of Jammu holding that his qualification was not the same as prescribed in Page No. 102 of JUET Admission Brochure.
4. Aggrieved of his rejection, the petitioner preferred a writ petition [WP(C) No. 2999/2019] seeking quashing of communication dated 25.07.2019. This writ petition was considered and disposed of vide order dated 31.12.2019 by holding as under:-
“Viewed thus, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of along with connected CM by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Committee in terms of Statute 8 of Statutes Governing Admissions in Admission Brochure for 2019, University of Jammu. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, in such an eventuality, the Appellate Committee is directed to decide the appeal of petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of filing of such appeal.”
5. The respondents in terms of the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2019, considered the appeal of the petitioner, and by an order dated 31.01.2020 held him ineligible for admission to LLB course as his mode of acquiring qualifying degree was not as per Statute. Concluding para of order dated 31.01.2020 reads as under:-
“therefore, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered and he has been found ineligible for Admission to the LL.B 3 years Course as his mode of acquiring the qualifying Decree is not as per the laid down Statutes i.e., of 10+2+3 pattern (Honours or General.)”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied admission arbitrarily despite the fact that he possesses the requisite eligibility as prescribed in the eligibility clause of the Statute and Admission Brochure. It is submitted that the respondents have not properly evaluated the petitioner’s degree as his mode of acquiring the qualification is 10+3+3 whereas they are insisting on 10+2+3 pattern for Bachelor Degree as stipulated in Page-102 of the Statute. The petitioner, according to him, possesses three years diploma in Civil Engineering and thereafter has qualified (3) years degree in Civil Engineering through distance mode from Vinayaka Mission University. This degree stands validated by AICTE-UGC and, therefore, he possesses the requisite eligiblity as his qualification falls within 102 clause as per the Statute and the Admission Brochure.
7. It is also submitted that the respondents have also failed to consider ‘OR’ part of the eligibility prescribed in the Admission Brochure and statue which includes an examination qualifying for a professional degree of not less than 3 years duration and as the petitioner possesses the same, he, therefore, should have been granted admission for the LLB course.
8. Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University/respondents submits that in terms of Para-8 of t
