An ITI qualification can be considered equivalent to the Pre-University course for admission to a three-year LL.B. program, per prior judicial decisions.

ORDER :

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 04.08.2025 in application Ref. No. LW002S250000850, issued by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner at Annexure-Q, in the interest of justice and equity.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing to the respondent No.2 to issue an eligibility certificate to the petitioner for the purpose of getting an admission to the 3^rd year Law Degree Course, in the interest of justice and equity.”

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 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 Abubakar Vs. Karnataka State Law University and others, W.P. No. 200642/2021 dated 08.12.2021 and 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 10^th 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.B.

3. Rule 2(vi) of the Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) defines ‘Bachelor degree in law’ as under:

“2(vi) “Bachelor degree in law” means and includes a degree in law conferred by the University recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of the Act and includes a bachelor degree in law after any bachelor degree in science, arts, commerce, engineer