Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
M. Naveen Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.23603 of 2019
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. D. Ramakrishna
For the Respondent: Sri. Ch. Jagannadha Rao, Learned Standing Counsel, Smt. S. Nanda, learned counsel, Smt. Sarada, learned Standing counsel, and Sri G.M. Moinuddin, learned counsel
Point of Law :
Rule 3 of the said Rules Provided that the candidates who have passed degree examination by single sitting without undertaking three year course either through regular or private correspondence and those who obtained degree through open University system directly without having any basic qualification are not eligible to appear for LAWCET and LAWCET.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 226 - A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 - Section 101 - A.P. LAWCET Rules, 2004 - Rule 3 - Entrance examination - LAWCET - Eligibility Criteria - Approving/ratifying admission - Rank list - Convenor quota - Petitioner does not meet eligibility of having obtained three year degree programme by undertaking regular course as mandated by the Bar Council of India Rules on Legal Education of 2008 as amended in 2017
Facts of the case: Petitioner has appeared for LAWCET 2019 Entrance examination conducted by 2nd respondent in academic year 2019- 20 and has secured rank of 3101 thereat - Based on said rank secured, petitioner claims to have sought for admission under Convenor quota in spot admission held at Law College - However, as 2nd respondent being Convenor of Telangana State LAWCET 2019 not approving/ratifying the admission of petitioner under convenor quota in to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, the petitioner is unable to pursue three year law course.
Finding of the court: Court is of the view that the petitioner does not meet eligibility of having obtained three year degree programme by undertaking regular course as mandated by Bar Council of India Rules on Legal Education of 2008 as amended in 2017; and petitioner not meeting criteria specified in the notification issued relating to conduct of TS LAWCET, 2019 in view of the proviso to clause (a) of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 3 of Rules, 2004 governing admissions relating to three year law course as amended by G as adopted by the State of Telangana vide G.O.Higher Education (TE/A2) Department, as per Section 101 of Act, 2014; the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief from this court.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not approving/ratifying the admission of the petitioner into three year LLB Course under convenor quota and allowing the petitioner to pursue the LLB course, though the petitioner having qualified in the LAW Common Entrance Test (LAWCET), 2019, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to allot seat to the petitioner in any of the colleges under Convenor quota to pursue the three year LLB course by declaring the condition “candidates who have passed decree examination by single sitting are not eligible” as illegal, unjust.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has appeared for the LAWCET 2019 Entrance examination conducted by the 2nd respondent in the academic year 2019- 20 and has secured rank of 3101 thereat. Based on the said rank secured, the petitioner claims to have sought for admission under the Convenor quota in the spot admission held at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, Hyderabad. However, as the 2nd respondent being the Convenor of the Telangana State LAWCET 2019 not approving/ratifying the admission of the petitioner under convenor quota in to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, the petitioner is unable to pursue the three year law course.
3. Counter-affidavits had on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 5 and respondent no.4 have been filed in the matter.
4. Heard D. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 5, Smt. S. Nanda, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Smt. Sarada, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri G.M. Moinuddin, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have applied for TS Law Common Entrance Test, 2019 seeking admission into three year law course (LLB) during the academic year 2019-20. It is claimed that though the petitioner secured rank of 3101, in the said entrance examination conducted and sought admission into Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, Hyderabad under the Convenor quota, the same was not approved/ratified by the 2nd respondent. The reason for refusal by the 2nd respondent in not allotting the petitioner a seat for pursuing three year LLB course, is on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the condition for seeking admission into the said course, as the petitioner obtained qualifying decree examination through external examination without undergoing three year regular course. The said restriction imposed by the 2nd respondent, is under challenge in the present proceeding.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the reasonableness of the said restriction imposed, submits that the LAWCET notification issued by the 2nd respondent did not contain the said restriction. It is only after the conduct of entrance examination, the said restriction relating to the candidates requiring to have three year regular course in the qualifying degree examination was introduced only at the time of making applications for allotment of seats after having qualified at the entrance examination. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that any condition/restriction imposed subsequent to the conduct of entrance examination cannot be made applicable, since the petitioner took the examination on the basis of the conditions made known while issuing the LAWCET 2019 notification.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has passed his 10th class during the year 1983 through regular school study and thereafter passed Intermediate in the year 1986. However, thereafter the petitioner could not pursue higher studies on account of financial constraints and was eking out a living by doing private job to
