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) 39547

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Keshava T. N. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 30177 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mallaiah M. R.
For the Respondents: Girish Kumar R., Manjunath K.

Industrial training certifications are recognized as equivalent to senior secondary qualifications for law degree admission. Educational institutions cannot mandate specific pre-university paths if vocational equivalents are established, as the primary requirement for a three-year law program is a valid graduate-level degree from a recognized institution.

Headnote:(A) Legal Education - Eligibility criteria for three-year law degree - Admission requirements - Whether industrial technical training is equivalent to senior secondary qualification - Held, industrial technical training must be considered equivalent to pre-university or senior secondary schooling for the purpose of law degree eligibility. Neither statutory rules nor university regulations expressly exclude such vocational training in lieu of traditional schooling systems. (Paras 4, 8)

(B) Bar Council of India Rules - Rule 5 - Eligibility for law course - Requirement of having a first degree - A candidate possessing a valid three-year bachelor degree from a recognized institution fulfills the core eligibility criteria for admission, rendering rigid adherence to specific pre-degree schooling patterns unnecessary where vocational equivalence is established. (Paras 9, 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an endorsement issued by the university rejecting his eligibility for a three-year law degree program. The rejection was based on the premise that the petitioner had completed an industrial training course rather than traditional higher secondary schooling, which the university claimed did not meet its admission criteria.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the insistence on traditional higher secondary certification ignores the recognition of vocational training as a valid academic foundation. It held that the university acted in error by failing to recognize the vocational course as equivalent, particularly where such technical qualifications are not explicitly barred by current regulations.

Issues: The main issues were whether an industrial vocational training certificate qualifies as an equivalent to senior secondary education for the purpose of higher legal studies and whether a candidate’s possession of a recognized bachelor degree satisfies the eligibility requirement irrespective of their intermediate educational path.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that vocational training qualifications constitute a valid equivalent to pre-university education. Educational authorities cannot arbitrarily deny admission based on the nature of the intermediate qualification if the candidate otherwise possesses a valid bachelor degree and the vocational training has been legally recognized as a sufficient academic foundation.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned endorsement quashed; respondent university directed to issue the eligibility certificate within fifteen days.

Table of Content
1. determination of eligibility for 3-year law course based on precedent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. iti or job oriented course is equivalent to 10+2 qualification. (Para 4 , 5)
3. applying established precedents to quash rejection and mandate issuance of eligibility certificate. (Para 6 , 7)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.09.2025 (REJECTION OF ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE) AT ANNEXURE-E. 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 for the following reliefs:

“a) Issue an appropriate writ or order or directions to set aside the endorsement dated 19.09.2025 (rejection of eligibility certificate) at Annexure-E.

b) Direct resp. No.2 university to issue eligibility certificate of the petitioner and to admit the petitioner in resp.No.3 college without any delay.

c) Pass such any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity and Justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 been rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner has not passed 10+2+3 as contemplated under the law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

2. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner ought to have passed Pre-university after passing 10th standard and thereafter should have completed his Degree and then only he would be eligible for admission to LL.B. But, the petitioner has completed a I.T.I course for two years and hence he is not being considered for admission to LL

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