Mohammed Mastan Pasha v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 26854 OF 2026 (EDN-AD) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED MASTAN PASHA S/O. MOHAMMED IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.307, AKBAR NAGAR, MECCA MASJID, SHIKARI PALYA, BANGALORE SOUTH, ELECTRONICS CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKASH R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580 025.

¶3THE PRINCIPAL, BRITE LAW COLLEGE, by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO.140, OLD NO.1023, 20TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, NEAR SIDVIN HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 19.08.2026 BEARING REF.NO.BLC/076/26-27 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, WHEREBY THE PETITIONER'S ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION TO THE 5-YEAR B.A. LL.B. COURSE HAS BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT JOC IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO PUC AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

Notice to respondent No.3 is waived.

¶2The petitioner who has undergone the 2-year job-oriented Pre-University Diploma course and having completed the same, had approached the 3rd respondent - College for admission to the 5-year B.A. LL.B. course for the academic year 2026-27.

¶3It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has refused petitioner admission on the ground of eligibility stating that the petitioner was ineligible for joining of the 5-year B.A. LL.B. course, as he had not completed his PUC / 10+2. The petitioner has relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25719/2026 and submits that JOC/ITI/Diploma qualifications have been considered to be equivalent to PUC / 10+2 and the Court had relied on the order passed in the case of Mr.Abubakar vs. Karnataka State Law University and others in W.P.No.200642/2021

dated 08.12.2021. It is submitted that, on parity, similar order may be passed.

¶4Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - University would submit that the order passed in W.P.No.18825/2026 has been taken up in Writ Appeal No.1060/2025 and the Court may await the outcome of such orders.

¶5Perused the order passed in W.P.No.25719/2026. The observations made at para-5 reads as hereunder: "5. The precise issue of eligibility of a student who has completed I.T.I. course, and who has not done his 10+2/II P.U.C. course and eligibility to admit himself to the LL.B. degree programme, has been dealt with in W.P.No.18825/2026. The relevant observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition reads as follows: "4. The issue involved in the case is squarely covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Abubakar Vs. Karnataka State Law

University and Others, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has, in paragraph No.8, held as follows: "8. By bare reading of the Rules of Bar Council of India and the Regulations of the first respondent-University, it has to be held that a candidate to be eligible for admission to a three year Law Degree Course should have passed a three years degree program from a recognized University and that he should not have obtained 10+2 or graduation through an open University system. Neither the Rules nor the Regulations excludes I.T.I course in lieu of PUC or 11th and 12th standards when a student wants to get admitted to a three year Law Degree Course. When that being the situation, the first respondent-University in its notification for admission to three year Law Degree Course for the academic year 2020-21 cannot insist upon that the students should have only studied in Pre-University or 12th standard. It should consider I.T.I course for two years as equivalent to Pre-University or 12th standard. Further, the notification also does not expressly state that I.T.I is not equivalent to +2. For the said reasons, it has to be held that the second respondent has committed an error in not admitting the petitioner to the course of three year LL.B Degree programme only on the ground that he has not completed +2, but has studied I.T.I before obtaining a valid three year degree from a recognized University." The Co-ordinate Bench has held that, the qualification of the petitioner therein is equivalent to that of

'10+2'. I concur with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench.

¶5In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The respondents are directed to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner and admit him to 5 year LLB course, wihtin one month from today; iii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶6Also in W.P.No.25719/2026 while permitting admission to the 5-year B.A. LL.B. course, the Court had made the admission subject to the outcome in W.A.No.1060/2025. Accordingly, in the present case also identical order may be passed.

¶7In light of the above, respondent No.2 is directed to issue Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner to enable his admission to the 5-year B.A. LL.B. course. Such certificate to be issued within 15 days from today.

¶8Needless to state, petitioner's undertaking to be bound by the outcome of the order to be passed in W.A.No.1060/2025, is noted.

Noting the same, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13