SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39526

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
Kumar P.S. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 29128 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H A Manjunatha
For the Respondents: Manjunath K., Saritha Kulkarni

For 3-year law program admissions, vocational or technical certifications obtained prior to a recognized graduation degree qualify as equivalents to 10+2 education. University authorities cannot deny eligibility by insisting on traditional higher secondary certificates when the candidate has successfully completed a graduation-level degree.

Headnote:(A) Education Law - Admission to LL.B. Degree Programme - Eligibility criteria - Whether vocational or technical training is equivalent to higher secondary education (10+2) - Upon perusal of the relevant Bar Council of India Rules and university regulations, it is held that vocational or technical courses are not expressly excluded as equivalents for admission purposes - If an applicant possesses a recognized graduation degree, the insistence on a traditional 10+2 certificate is not sustainable when the candidate has completed a technical training course considered equivalent by the state. (Paras 4, 8, 11)

(B) Administrative Law - Issuance of Eligibility Certificate - Scope of judicial review - When an academic institution denies eligibility based on a restrictive interpretation of educational qualifications, the court acts to correct the error if such interpretation contradicts established legal precedents and the practical equivalence of technical training. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having completed a vocational or technical course followed by a graduation degree, applied for admission to a three-year law degree program. The university authority declined to grant an eligibility certificate, contending that the technical certification was not equivalent to the 10+2 higher secondary examination.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the governing rules did not expressly disqualify candidates with vocational/technical certifications from being treated as having satisfied the educational prerequisites, provided they have earned a degree from a recognized university. The insistence on traditional secondary schooling in the face of recognized vocational qualifications was deemed an error.

Issues: The main issues were whether a technical or vocational course constitutes a valid equivalent to the 10+2 qualification for law degree admissions and whether the university was justified in rejecting the eligibility certificate based on this technicality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a candidate has successfully completed a recognized graduation degree, the preceding vocational or technical course, when recognized as an equivalent to the higher secondary level for other state purposes, must be accepted for university admissions. The requirement of a first degree serves as the primary benchmark for eligibility.

Result: Petition allowed; the impugned endorsement rejecting the application is quashed and the university is directed to issue the eligibility certificate.

Table of Content
1. court establishes facts, identifies relief sought, and confirms the issue is covered by existing precedents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. iti qualification is equivalent to +2 education for law admissions, as per karnataka state law university regulations. (Para 4 , 6)
3. mandates issuance of eligibility certificates by the university for petitioners meeting degree-based law course eligibility. (Para 7 , 10)
4. possession of a recognized first degree satisfies eligibility for ll.b courses, regardless of the equivalence of preceding job-oriented courses. (Para 8 , 9)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 04.09.2025 BEARING APPLICATION REF.NO.LW002S250002659 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ or direction quashing the impugned endorsement dated 04.09.2025 bearing application Ref.No.LW002S250002659 issued by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A.

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue an Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner and allow him for admission in 3rd Respondent College pursuant to the application dated 19.08.2025 made by the petitioner vide Annexure-H.

(c) Pass any such other order/s or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Sri.Naveenkumar K.V., Vs. The Karnataka State Law University and Ors – W.P.No.26757/2024 dated 01.10.2024 and Rakesh Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. - W.P.No.31737/2024 dated 09.12.2024.

4. In Sri.Naveenkumar K.V.’s case, (supra), this Court has held as under:

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:

i) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement bearing Application ref No.LW002S240001257 dated 21.09.2024 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-R and consequently, direct the respondent No.1 to issue eligibility certificate in favour of petitioner by considering his qualification for admission to Three Year Law Degree Course in any of the Recognized colleges of the 1st respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Grant such other reliefs as may be deems to be fit to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Mr.Abubakar Vs.Karnataka State Law University and others - W.P.No.200642/2021 dated 08.12.2021 and Sri N.Dinesh Vs. The Karnataka State Law University -W.P.No.15723 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023.

4. In Abubakar's case (supra), this Court has held as under:

"The petitioner has completed his SSLC in the academic year 2009-10 from Urdu High School, Jewargi, District Kalaburagi. Thereafter, he has completed I.T.I (Electrician), a two years course from Shri Noorandeshwar I.T.I, Jewargi in the year 2012. Thereafter, he has passed three years B.A. Degree in the year 2020 from Gulbarga University, Kalaburagi. Thereafter, he has approached respondent No.2 for admission to three years LL.B course. The same has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top