C.R. Rose vs State of Kerala and Others

Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.—These writ petitions arise from the same facts, and validity of admissions made to the First Year LL.M. Course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam for the year 1989-90 is under challenge. An LL.B. Degree is a basic condition of eligibility for admission to LL.M. Course. The said Degree is secured by undergoing a Three Year or Five Year Course. Petitioner in O.P. 2606/90 underwent the Three Year Course, while Petitioners in O.P. Nos. 2755/90 and 2805/90 underwent the Five Year Course.

According to Petitioner in O.P. 2606/90, unequais are treated equally, and according to Petitioners in the other two cases, equals are treated unequally.

Ext. P-1 in OP. 2755/90 (hereinafter referred as Ext. P-1) is a partial extract of conditions of eligibility for admission, prescribed by the Academic Council of the Mahatma Gandhi University u/s 25 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. Ext. R-3 (a) in O.P. 2606/90 [hereinafter referred as Ext. R-3 (a)] is the copy of prospectus issued by the Principal, Government Law College. Clause 6 ot Ext. P-1 prescribes an LL.B. Degree conferred oy the Mahatma Gandhi University as a condition of eligibility. No distinction is made between a Degree secured undergoing the Three Year or Five Year Courses. To the same effect is Clause 5(ii) of Ext. R-3(a).

Petitioner in O.P. 2606/90 avers in the writ petition that candidates who have undergone Three Year and Five Year Courses, are grouped together and ranked. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted that, of the fifteen seats, five were set apart for candidates who had undergone Three Year Course, Anr. five for those who had undergone Five Year Course, and the remaining five for reserved categories.

She complains of equal treatment of unequals. Those who have undergone the two courses fall into distinct categories, submits Counsel. It is unnecessary to go into the claims advanced by Petitioner in O.P. 2606/90 because, she will not be selected in any event. If admission is made, reserving five seats for those who have undergone the Three Year Course, her rank in the list will be 13. If all the applicants are grouped together, then her rank will be even lower.

Petitioners in the other writ petitions contend that, every applicant with an LL.B. Degree should be treated alike. According to them, the conditions of eligibility for admission, are prescribed by the Academic Council and no other agency can ''dilute'' the qualifications. They rely on the decisions in Varghese v. Director of Medical Education 1987 (2) KLT 673 and D.N. Chanchala Ors. Vs. The State of Mysore and Others, to support the contention. This argument commends acceptance.

They would further submit that the Principal, Law College, has ''diluted'' the qualifications by dividing the applicants into two groups on the basis of the two courses, consigning merit to the background. Those with lower marks in Three Year Quota would secure admission, while those in the Five Year Quota with higher marks, would be denied admission, state Petitioners. It is unnecessary to consider this question because, the action of the Principal is unsustainable for Anr. reason. Since the power to prescribe qualifications and mode of admission is committed to the Academic Council, the Principal cannot vary it. His contention in the counter-affidavit that he can prescribe modalities for making admissions, is not supported by principle or authority. This contention runs contra, to the rule in Varghese v. Director of Medical Education 1987 (2) KLT 673 and D.N. Chanchala Ors. Vs. The State of Mysore and Others, .

Whether two groups are equals or unequals, is for the Academic Council to decide, as stated in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University AIR 1986 S.C. 1443. The Academic Council has treated those who have undergone Three Year Course and Five Year Course as equal in Clause 6 of Ext. P-1. Counsel for the University affirms this position. A statement filed during the course of arguments on behalf of the University mentions (paragraphs 2 and 3) that both classes are considered as equals. However, in paragraph (4) of the same statement, it is mentioned that there are differences between the two classes.

Petitioners further submit that a differentiation based on the source is bad, as indicated in Suneel Jatley and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . Micro classification on irrational foundations, cannot pass muster against the mandate and might of Article 14. Since the quota system introduced by the. Principal cannot be justified in the light of the prescriptions made by the University, it is unnecessary to consider in these petitions whether Article 14 is violated.

The question for moulding relief must be considered in a broad perspective, though the Principal has acted erroneously. It is said that admissions for the 1989-90 course were made only by the end of March, 1990. Making admissions for the 1989-90. Course at the end of the academic year, is not a wholesome practice. Perhaps, this is occasioned by the belated holding of examinations and publication of results by the Universities, on whom time dimension appears to make little or no impact. One cannot assent to a situation, that steals time from the best years of life of a young man or woman, on whatever administrative reasons they are sought to be justified.

Since any further delay in making admissions by evolving a fresh procedure and going through it will cause further delay and detriment, I do not think that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be invoked to quash the admissions made for the year 1989-90.

I direct the University to bring more mature reflection on the various facets of the matter, before issuing the prospectus for the next year, so that uncertainties and lurking sentiments may not stand in the way of the next batch, whose LL.B. results may perhaps be announced early in 1991, considering the pattern of the previous years. The results of final year LL.B. examination 1989, were announced only in January or February, 1990. The University and the other authorities will also bestow thought on certain other aspects, touching on the curriculum. Instruction in Subjects of Law. alone cannot make a complete Lawyer. Power of sharp analysis, placid reflection, facile expression and breadth of vision, go to make a good Lawyer. I recall the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court, to a young admirer of his, who sought his advice on a successful career in Law. He said:

No one can be a truly competent lawyer unless he is a cultivated man. The best way to prepare for Law is to come to the study of Law, as a well read person. Thus alone can one acquire the capacity to use the English language on paper and in speech, and with habits of clear thinking, which only a liberal education can give. No less important for a Lawyer is the cultivation of imaginative faculties by reading poetry, seeing great paintings and listening to great music. Stock your mind with much good reading, and widen and deepen your feelings, by experiencing vicariously much as possible the wonderful mysteries of the universe and forget all about your future career.

Those who decide on the course of studies, will profit by heeding to the advice. Areas of excellence must be developed, to sustain and nourish high traditions and values of the profession. As already noticed, the University feels that there are inadequacies in the system. Nothing prevents the authorities from thinking of an entrance examination.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. The authorities will complete the admission procedure and commence the Course for 1989-90 without further delay. I make it clear that this judgment governs only admissions to the 1989-90. Course.

*A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series).