Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 269 (JK)

Manjeet Kumar v. University of Jammu

2021-06-02

SINDHU SHARMA

body2021
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. 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 the judgment in WP(C) No. 2999/2019, this Court had already held that since the pattern of 10+3+3 is not known to the University Statute, as such, the petitioner cannot seek equivalence of his degree with those graduate who have acquired their degree under the recognized pattern as laid down in University Statute, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as holder of Bachelor degree for all purposes. It is further submitted that in view of the finding arrived at by the writ Court and the petitioner having accepted the same, the same cannot be questioned in this petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has sought quashing of the order in the absence of any challenge laid to the University Statute, no relief can be granted to him. 9. The relevant eligibility clause at page-102 of JUET 2019 governing admission reads as under: “A candidate to be eligible for admission to the Master Degree (other than M.Phil and Ph.D), Bachelor Degree (LL.B (3 Years), B.Lib.I.Sc. & B.P.Ed) and Diploma programmes in the University, must have passed/appeared in the final year of the qualifying Bachelor’s degree examination of 10+2+3 pattern (Honours or General) in Arts, Science, Commerce, or Business Administration or an examination qualifying for a professional degree of not less than 3 years duration or any other examination recognized as equivalent thereof, from a recognized university/institution with at least 40% of the aggregate marks or as specified (36% for the Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates). Candidates who have passed degree course of two years duration under 10+2+2 or 10+1+3 pattern and thereafter have passed bridge course of one year duration comprising Part-III of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Three years (General) course of the University of Jammu or any other recognized University shall also be eligible subject to the aggregate qualifying marks as indicated above. A candidate who has passed M.A/M.Sc./M.Com. Examination from the University after having passed B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Examination under the old pattern of 10+2+2 or 10+1+3 shall also be eligible for admission under second preference category to: (a) a course where the minimum eligibility condition is pass in Three Year Degree (General) Course after 12 years of schooling. (b) a Master Degree Course in an allied subject, if otherwise permissible under Statutes/Regulations of the University. Notwithstanding anything contained in Statute 1, a candidate appearing in the final year of the qualifying examinations immediately preceding the Academic Session & expecting to fulfill the Statutory requirement of at least 40% of the aggregate marks in the Bachelor’s Degree (36% in the case of candidates belonging to SC/ST) can also appear in the written objective type Jammu University Entrance Test (JUET).” 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is eligible as he fulfills alternate eligibility conditions as, “or any other professional examination qualifying for a professional degree of not less than 3 years duration” after validation of his Bachelor Degree by AICTE, the same is equivalent to Bachelor Degree awarded by any other University therefore, he is entitled to seek admission. This submission however was rejected by this Court while disposing of the earlier petition wherein it was held that “since the pattern of 10+3+3 is not known to the University Statutes, as such, the petitioner cannot seek equivalence of this degree with those graduates, who have acquired their degrees under the recognized pattern as laid down in University Statute nor can the petitioner be treated as a holder of Bachelor Degree for all practical purposes. I am also inclined to agree with view expressed in the earlier writ petition as this clause has to be read in its entirety and as per the same, the degree has to be in terms of 10+2+3 pattern, whereas the petitioner has obtained the professional degree via lateral entry on 10+3+3 pattern of graduation which is not permissible as per the University Statute 102 which envisages graduation degree only on 10+2+3 pattern. 11. The issue of determining equivalence of degree obtained by the petitioner is best left to academic bodies who are academically equipped to opine by considering the various aspects. The respondents, who are experts in the field, would be justified in declaring ineligible all such candidates, who do not possess the same qualification as the determination of equivalent qualification for educational admission or service is always to be ascertained by the experts in the field and it is for them to decide whether a particular degree or qualification can be substituted for another. In the present case, the respondents have not accepted the qualification of the petitioner on 10+3+3 pattern as the same is not in the recognized mode and as the petitioner has acquired the same by way of lateral entry. It is an academic decision which cannot be considered in these proceedings. It is well settled proposition of law that the Court would not go into the question of equivalence of a degree of qualification. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the similar issue in Basic Education Board, UP Vs. Upendra Rai, & ors. It is an academic decision which cannot be considered in these proceedings. It is well settled proposition of law that the Court would not go into the question of equivalence of a degree of qualification. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the similar issue in Basic Education Board, UP Vs. Upendra Rai, & ors. 2008 (3) SCC 432 held that the issue of equivalence is decided by the experts and the Courts do not have expertise in such kind of matters. 12. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc. vs Karnataka University & anr., AIR 1986 SC 1448 the apex Court has held that:- “The law on the question of equivalence was succinctly stated, it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the course, the syllabus, quality of teaching or instructions and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the course should not disturb the decision taken by the University.” 13. There is no material placed on record on the basis of which, it could be said that decision of the respondent-University in not considering the petitioner’s qualification as eligible. 14. The respondents have prescribed 10+2+3 pattern and admittedly petitioner has not qualified the same, therefore, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for admission in LLB course and, as such, the respondents have rightly rejected his case for admission to LLB. 15. The University otherwise also is bound by its Statute and cannot be expected to go against the same nor can it be directed to proceed against its own Statute. In A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society Etc. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & anr.; AIR 1986 1490, it has been held as under:- “We do not think that we can possibly acceed to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws.” 16. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appellate committee has rightly held that the petitioner is not eligible for LLB three years course as his mode of acquiring the qualifying Degree was not a 10+2+3 pattern. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.