Bombay HC restores law admission of Open University candidate who failed 12th Board exams [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court recently restored a Open University graduate’s admission to a 3-year LL. B (Bachelor of Law) course, although she had failed her Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exam..Relying on the view forwarded by the Madras High Court last year, the Bench found that the petitioner’s graduate degree from a recognised Open University, obtained after clearing a preparatory course entrance test, was sufficient qualification to pursue the law course..Case Background.The petitioner before the Court had failed her HSC exam in 1992. However, she cleared a preparatory course entrance test, and thereafter obtained a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in 2005 through a distance course from the Yashwantrao Chavan Open University, Nashik..The preparatory course test is necessary for candidates who have failed 12th standard exam seeking admission to the first-year undergraduate course conducted by an Open University..In 2011, the petitioner decided to pursue a three-year LL. B course and got admitted to the New Law College, affiliated to the University of Mumbai..Subsequently, she was formally informed by the college of the cancellation of her admission..The communication made by college referred to various circulars and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (2008 Rules) made by the Bar Council of India (BCI)..The college administration cited Rule 5 of the 2008 Rules to state that the 12th standard mark sheet is required for admission to get enrolled for a law course conducted by the University of Mumbai..Rule 5 lays down the eligibility criteria when it comes to admitting students for a law course in India. Inter alia, it provides that the candidate must be a graduate from a University recognized by Central or State law, or a deemed university, or a foreign University recognized as being at par with an Indian University by law in order to be eligible for admission into a three-year law programme. The candidate is expected to graduate from such an institution by attending a regular programme..Students who have obtained their degrees through distance or correspondence education are also considered eligible, as per the first proviso to Rule 5. However, the explanation to the Rule bars candidates from pursuing law if they obtain their school or graduate degree from an Open University system without having basic qualification preceding the same..Being aggrieved by the cancellation of her admission, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court for the restoration of her admission..Submissions.Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Nitin S Satpute submitted that since the degree was conferred by the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Act, 1989, the explanation to Rule 5 is arbitrary and contrary to the law settled in the provisions of 1989 Act..To support his argument, advocate Satpute cited the judgment of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in GS Jagadeesh vs. The Chairman, 2018..In that case, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of the then Chief Justice, Indira Banerjee and Justices R Subbiah and Abdul Quddhose had observed,. “… once a recognized university or a recognized board issues a certificate, it is not for any other authority to question the certificate on the ground of ineligibility to obtain the certificate, until and unless the certificate is cancelled by an appropriate authority and/or by a Court of law. To hold otherwise would be to open the Pandora’s box, for years later certificates might be questioned on grounds such as inadequate attendance, failure to clear internal test examinations and the like and it would be impossible for candidates possessing the degree and/or certificate to adduce cogent materials and/or evidence to satisfy those questioning the certificates. When a regular certificate is granted by a recognized board, there is a presumption that the candidate was eligible to be conferred the certificate.,”.Advocate Amit D Sale, appearing for the BCI, submitted that the Rules of 2008 do not make the petitioner eligible to pursue the law course..He argued that the petitioner has been specifically rendered ineligible by the 2008 Rules because of her failure to clear the HSC exam, which is the 10 +2 pattern of education recognized for admission to a law course..Advocates Rui Rodrigues and Rimi Jain appeared for the University of Mumbai..What the Bombay High Court held. The Division Bench of justices SC Dharmadhikari and MS Karnik relied on the GS Jagadeesh case to rule that,. “It is unjust that the candidate is required to pass the basic eligibility of H.S.C from recognized board/ University despite completing graduation from Open University.”.In that case, the Madras High Court had clarified that it is only the immediate preceding qualification that needs to be considered when evaluating whether the candidate has pursued a regular programme (in line with Rule 5) prior to applying for the law course..“The language and tenor of Rules 5(a) and 5(b) read with the first proviso and the Explanation make it amply clear that prosecution of a regular course is mandatory only for the immediately previous qualifying certificate and/or degree, for example, graduate degree for the Three Year LLB Course and Senior Secondary Certificate for the Integrated Degree Program…”.Concurring with the Madras High Court’s view on the issue, the Bombay High Court Bench proceeded to allow the petitioner’s plea, directing that,. “The petitioner shall be admitted to the ensuing session of Three-Year Law Course if the petitioner is still interested in taking admission, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities for obtaining admission.”.In another judgment, the Bombay High Court restored admission of a petitioner to 5-year law course, in which case the petitioner had privately cleared 12th standard board exam as he could not appear for 11th standard exam due to personal reasons..In 2017, the petitioner appeared for State Common Entrance Test (CET) and got provisionally admitted to 5-year Regular Full Time Integrated LL. B Course at Indian Law Society’s (ILS) Law College, Pune..The ILS Law college, however, canceled the admission citing the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The college administration informed the petitioner that he was ineligible to pursue the law course as the 11th standard mark-sheet is a compulsory document for admissions. The petitioner, therefore, moved the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the college..The same Bench of justices SC Dharmadhikari and MS Karnik, allowed the plea, noting that the issue in the petition was squarely covered in the GS Jagadeesh case. .In that case, the Madras High Court had ruled that those who were privately schooled were not barred from pursuing law, provided that they obtained their school and college certificates from a recognised Board/University, thereby concurring with the law laid down in an earlier case, Theerthagiri v. The Director of School Education and others..Applying the same legal position, the Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s prayer and directed that he be accommodated in the ensuing session of the 5-year law course..[Read the Bombay High Court Judgments]