http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1986

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1448            1986 SCR  (2) 912  1986 SCC  Supl.  740     1986 SCALE  (1)981  CITATOR INFO :  F          1987 SC2305  (16,18)  F          1989 SC 823  (17)

ACT:      Professional Colleges  - Admission  to - Recognition of degree -  University best  fitted to  decide -  Court not to disturb decision taken by University.

HEADNOTE:      The condition of eligibility laid down by the Karnataka University  for   admission  to   the  first   year  of  the Engineering Degree Course in the affiliated private colleges provides :           "Candidates shall  have passed  the two  year pre-           university  examination   of  the   pre-university           education board,  Bangalore or an examination held           by any  other Board  or University  recognised  as           equivalent to  it  with  English  as  one  of  the           languages and  Physics, Chemistry  and Mathematics           as optional subjects with the necessary percentage           of marks  laid down  by the University at the time           of admission.           A student  who has  passed B.Sc.  Examination with           Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and secured not           less  than   50%  of  the  aggregate  of  Physics,           Chemistry and  Mathematics, is  also eligible  for           admission. However,  he cannot  claim exemption of           any sort."      The  Higher  Secondary  Examination  in  the  State  of Rajasthan required only eleven years schooling. The State of Rajasthan did  not follow  the pattern  of 10+2  where  SSLC Examination is  held after  10 years  schooling followed  by study for  a period  of two  years, whether  in school or in college, which  is termed  as intermediate  course  at  some places and  Pre-University Course at others. However, so far as the  State of  Karnataka is  concerned, it  followed  the pattern of  10+2 and  after 10  years schooling  followed by SSLC Examination,  it provided for a two year Pre-University Course culminating  in  an  examination  held  by  the  Pre- University Education Board. 913      The appellant  in Civil  Appeal No.  10610 of  1983 had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

passed the  Higher Secondary  Examination conducted  by  the Board of  Secondary Education,  Rajasthan. The appellants in the other  appeals had  also,  after  the  Higher  Secondary Examination, passed  the first year examination of the three year B.Sc.  Degree Course  of the  University of Rajasthan / Udaipur. All  these appellants were granted admission to the first year  of the  Engineering Degree  course in  different colleges/institutions   affiliated    to    the    Karnataka University.  While   they  were   studying,  the   Karnataka University took  the view that since they had not passed the two year  Pre-University Examination  of the  Pre-University Education Board,  Bangalore and neither the Higher Secondary Examination  of   the  Board   of  C   Secondary  Education, Rajasthan, nor  the first  year  B.Sc.  Examination  of  the Rajasthan  and  Udaipur  Universities  passed  by  them  was equivalent to  the Pre-University  Examination of  the  Pre- University  Education   Board,  Bangalore,   they  were  not eligible  for   admission  and   accordingly  the  Karnataka University disapproved of their admissions and cancelled the same.      Aggrieved by  the cancellation  of their admission, the appellants filed  writ petitions in the High Court. A Single Judge of  the High  Court dismissed  all the  writ petitions holding (a)  that the  Vice-Chancellor  had  laid  down  the condition of eligibility in exercise of his emergency powers under s.12(5)  of the  Karnataka Universities  Act  and  his action was approved and affirmed by the Academic Council and the Syndicate  of the  University; (b)  that the  B.Sc. Part Examination of  the Universities  of Rajasthan  and  Udaipur could not  be regarded as equivalent to the B.Sc. first year Examination of  the Karnataka  University and  a fortiori it could not  be considered as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and in  any event  it was  not recognised  as  such  by  the Karnataka University; (c) that each University got the power to  prescribe  the  condition  of  eligibility  for  various courses in  the colleges  within its  jurisdiction  and  the condition  of   eligibility  prescribed   by  the  Karnataka University was  perfectly  valid  and  since  the  Karnataka University  had   not  recognised   the  first   year  B.Sc. Examination of  any other  university outside  the State  of Karanataka as  equivalent to  the Pre-University Examination held by the Pre-University 914 Education Board,  Bangalore, the  appellants did not satisfy the  condition  of  eligibility  and  were  accordingly  not eligible for  admission; and  (d) that  since the appellants were ineligible  for admission  to  the  Engineering  Degree Course  of  the  Karnataka  University,  any  delay  in  the cancellation  of   their   admission   could   not   convert ineligibility into  eligibility and  this was  not a case of irregular admission  where less  meritorious candidates were selected in preference to more meritorious candidates but it was a case where the candidates who were not eligible at 811 for admission  were admitted. The Division Bench of the High Court also  dismissed  the  appeals  of  the  appellants  in limine.      Dismissing the appeals, ^      HELD: 1. The appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University and  their   admission  was   contrary  to   the   Ordinance prescribing the condition of eligibility. However, the fault lies  with  the  Engineering  Colleges  which  admitted  the appellants  because  the  Principals  of  these  Engineering

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Colleges must  have  known  that  the  appellants  were  not eligible for  admission and  yet for  the sake of capitation fee, in  some of  the cases,  they granted  admission to the appellants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there  is no  reason why  the appellants should suffer for  the  sins  of  the  managements  of  these  Engineering Colleges. The  appellants are, therefore allowed to continue their studies  in the  respective  Engineering  Colleges  in which they  were granted  admission notwithstanding the view taken by the Court in this judgment. [926 B; F]      2.(i) The  condition of  eligibility laid  down by  the Karnataka University  requires  that  the  students  seeking admission should  have passed  the two  year  Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore or an  examination held  by any  other Board  of  University recognised as  equivalent to it. The examination held by any other Board  or University  which has  been  passed  by  the candidate must  be recognised by the Karnataka University as equivalent to the two year Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. [923 G-H; 924 Al 915      2.(ii) 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 courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction  and the  standard of  examination. It  is an academic question  in which the court should not disturb the decision taken by the University. [925 C-E]      2.(iii) The  Higher Secondary  Examination held  by the Secondary Education  Board, Rajasthan  after only  11  years schooling could  not be  regarded as  equivalent to the Pre- University  Examination   of  the  Pre-University  Education Board, Bangalore  which came as the culmination of a full 12 years course  of study.  It is  also difficult to understand how  the   decision  of  the  Karnataka  University  not  to recognise  the   n  first  year  B.Sc.  examination  of  the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities as equivalent to the Pre- University  Examination   of  the  Pre-University  Education Board, Bangalore could be regarded as arbitrary or fanciful. [925 B-D]      In the  present case,  the Karnataka University did not recognise the  Higher  Secondary  Examination  held  by  the Secondary Education  Board, Rajasthan  as equivalent  to the Pre-University Examination  of the  Pre-University Education Board,  Bangalore.   And  rightly   so  because  the  Higher Secondary Examination  of  the  Secondary  Education  Board, Rajasthan followed  only 11  years schooling  while the Pre- University  Examination   of  the  Pre-University  Education Board, Bangalore came at the end of 10+2 Course, that is, 12 years study. The Karnataka University also did not recognise the first  year B.Sc.  Examination of  the  Universities  of Rajasthan and  Udaipur as  equivalent to  the Pre-University Examination of  the Pre-Education  Board Bangalore.  In fact the Academic  Council took  the view  that first  year B.Sc. Examination of any University outside the State of Karnataka could not  be recognised  at equivalent  to the  first  year B.Sc. examination  of the  Karnataka University and it would therefore seem  to follow  a fortiori  that the  first  year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University was not regarded by the 916

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Karnataka University  as equivalent  to  the  Pre-University Examination   of   the   Pre-University   Education   Board, Bangalore. [924 B-F]      The Court  observed that  the University  of  Karnataka should  take   appropriate   action   against   the   erring Engineering  Colleges   because  the  managements  of  these Engineering  colleges   have  not   only  admitted  students ineligible for  admission  but  thereby  deprived  an  equal number of  eligible students  from getting  admission to the Engineering Degree Course. [926 F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 10610 of 1983 etc.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  27.10.1983 of  the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1983.      Dalveer Bhandari for the Appellants.      S.S. Javali and B.P. Singh for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI,  CJ.  These  appeals  by  special  leave  are directed against  an Order  passed by  the Division Bench of the Karnataka  High Court  summarily rejecting  writ appeals preferred by  several students  against  a  common  judgment delivered by Justice Rama Jois dismissing the writ petitions filed  by   them  challenging   the  cancellation  of  their admission by the Karnataka University. The facts giving rise to these  appeals are  few and  may  be  briefly  stated  as follows.      R.P. Mathur, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10610 of 1983 passed  Higher Secondary  Examination conducted  by the Board of  Secondary Education,  Rajasthan  and  applied  for admission to the first year of the Engineering Degree course in Shri  Dharamsthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and  Technology   for  the   academic  year   1981-82.  Shri Dharmasthala  Manjunatheswara  College  of  Engineering  and Technology is  a private  Engineering College  affiliated to the Karnataka  University and admission to the first year of the  Engineering   Degree  Course   in  this   College  was, therefore, governed  by the  Rules for Admission made by the Karnataka 917 University. On  11th August,  1980, the  Vice-Chancellor  in exercise of  the emergency  powers  conferred  upon  him  by section 12(5)  of the  Karnataka Universities  Act issued an Order prescribing,  inter alia, condition of eligibility for admission to  the  first  year  of  the  Engineering  Degree Course. This  Order made by the Vice-Chancellor was approved by the  Academic Council  and the  Syndicate and it governed admissions to  be made  to the first year of the Engineering Degree course  in the  academic year  1981-82 and subsequent years. The  condition of  eligibility provided by this Order was as follows :           "Candidates shall  have passed  the two  year pre-           university  examination   of  the   pre-university           education board,  Bangalore or an examination held           by any  other Board  or University  recognised  as           equivalent to  it  with  English  as  one  of  the           languages and  Physics, Chemistry  and mathematics           as optional subjects with the necessary percentage           of marks  laid down  by the University at the time           of admission.           A student  who has  passed B.Sc.  Examination with           Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and secured not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

         less  than   50%  of  the  aggregate  of  Physics,           Chemistry and  Mathematics, is  also eligible  for           admission. However,  he cannot  claim exemption of           any sort." Now, the  Higher  Secondary  Examination  in  the  State  of Rajasthan required  only 11  years schooling.  The State  of Rajasthan did  no follow  the pattern  of  10+2  where  SSLC Examination is  held after  10 years  schooling followed  by study for  a period  of two  years, whether  in school or in college, which  is termed  as Intermediate  course  at  some places and  Pre-University course at others. However, so far as the  State of  Karnataka is  concerned, it  followed  the pattern of  10+2 and  after 10  years’ schooling followed by SSLC Examination,  it provided for a two-year Pre-University course culminating  in  an  examination  held  by  the  Pre- University Education Board. Obviously, therefore, the Higher Secondary School Examination after 11 years schooling in the State of  Rajasthan could  not be  regarded as equivalent to the examination held by the Pre- 918 University Education  Board  after  10+2  in  the  State  of Karnataka  and   this  non-equivalence   was  not  seriously disputed on  behalf  of  the  appellant.  R.P.  Mathur,  was clearly, in  the circumstances not eligible for admission to the Engineering  Degree Course.  Even so, he was admitted by the Dharmasthala  Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology for  the academic  year 1981-82. He completed the first year and appeared in the examination held in July 1982 but he  failed in  four subjects  and he  had, therefore, to take a  supplementary examination  in January  1983 when  he cleared two  more subjects  and the  remaining two  subjects were cleared by him in the examination held in June 1983. He also simultaneously  appeared in the second year examination in June  1983 but again he failed to clear four subjects and he  had  to  appear  in  the  supplementary  examination  in December 1983 when he passed in the 2nd class. Whilst he was studying for  the second year, his admission was disapproved by the Karnataka University in a letter dated 7th April 1983 addressed  by   the  Registrar   to  the  Principal  of  the Dharmasthala  Manjunatheswara  College  of  Engineering  and Technology. This letter was in the following terms :           "The matter  ’has been examined carefully. The two           candidates (that  is, R.P.  Mathur and  one  Abhay           Kumar Jain)  have passed the H.S.C. Examination of           the H.E.F. Board and H.S.M. Board, Rajasthan which           is equivalent  to 11  years schooling.  As per our           eligibility requirements,  a candidate  must  have           passed two  year pre-university examination of the           pre-University Examination  Board, Bangalore or an           examination held  by any other Board or university           recognised  as   equivalent  to  it.  As  per  our           eligibility requirement,  H.S.C. examination of 11           years duration  is not considered as equivalent to           our two  years pre-university  examination as  the           pattern of education in our State is 10 years plus           two years,  while it  is  11  years  schooling  in           Rajasthan State. Therefore, the two candidates (1)           Sri R.P.  Mathur and  (2) Sri Abhay Kumar Jain are           not eligible for admission to the first year P.E.           Course  during   the  year   1981-82  as  per  our           eligibility  rules.  Candidates  may  be  informed           accordingly." 919 This decision  of the  Karnataka University was communicated to A  R.P. Mathur  by the  Principal  of  the  College.  He,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

thereupon filed  Writ Petition  No. 7744 of 1983 in the High Court of  Karnataka  challenging  the  cancellation  of  his admission by the Karnataka University.      It appears  that when the writ petition was admitted by a learned  Single Judge  of the High Court, an interim Order was made  allowing R.P.  Mathur to  continue his  studies in Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology and it was as a result of this interim Order that R.P. Mathur  could appear  in the  supplementary examination for the  first year  held  in  June  1983  and  the  regular examination for  the second year held in June 1983. The writ petition was  directed to  be heard  at an early date and it came up  for hearing  before Justice  Rama Jois sitting as a Single Judge.      There were  also six  other students,  namely (1) Vijay Kumar Sharma  (2) Nilesh  Kumar Malasia  (3) Rakesh Jain (4) Rajesh Kumar Mehta (5) Vinod Kumar Jain, and (6) T.M. Mathur appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 10812 and 10815 to 10819 of 1983 who  were admitted to the Engineering Degree Course for the  academic   year  1982-83   and  whose  admissions  were cancelled by  the Karnataka  University. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Nilesh Kumar  Malasia, Rakesh  Jain, Rajesh  Kumar Mehta and Vinod Kumar  Jain passed  the Higher  Secondary  Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and thereafter  Vijay   Kumar  Sharma  cleared  the  first  year examination of  the three-year Degree course in B.Sc. Of the University  of   Rajasthan  with   Physics,  Chemistry   and Mathematics as  optional subjects  and the other four, viz., Nilesh Kumar  Malasia, Rakesh  Jain, Rajesh  Kumar Mehta and Vinod Kumar  Jain, passed  the first year examination of the three year  B.Sc. Degree  course of  Udaipur University with the  same  three  subjects,  viz.,  Physics,  Chemistry  and Mathematics, as  optional subjects. These five students were admitted to  the Engineering  Degree course  in  the  S.T.C. Institute of  Technology, Ranibennur  for the  academic year 1982-83. The  Karnataka University  took the view that since they had not passed the two y ear Pre-University examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and neither the Higher  Secondary Examination  of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities passed 920 by them  was equivalent to the Pre-University examination of the Pre-  University Education  Board, Bangalore,  they were not eligible  for admission  and accordingly  the  Karnataka University by  its letter  dated 5th March, 1983 disapproved of their  admission  leading  to  the  cancellation  of  the admission. The course of events followed the same pattern so far as  T.Y. Mathur was concerned. He also passed the Higher Secondary Examination  conducted by  the Board  of Secondary Education, Rajasthan  and thereafter  cleared the first year examination of  the three  year B.Sc.  Degree course  of the University  of   Udaipur  and   on  the   basis   of   these qualifications, he  was admitted  to the  Engineering Degree course by  Anjuman  Engineering  College,  Bhatkal  for  the academic year  1982-83.  In  his  case  too,  the  Karnataka University disapproved  of his  admission on the ground that he was  not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree course and  in consequence,  his  admission  was  cancelled. Vijay Kumar  Sharma,  Nilesh  Kumar  Malasia,  Rakesh  Jain, Rajesh  Kumar  Mehta,  Vinod  Kumar  Jain  and  T.M.  Mathur aggrieved by the cancellation OE their admission, filed writ petitions Nos.  7999/83 to  8003/83 and  9533/83 in the High Court of  Karnataka. It  appears that  in the  case of these students also,  an interim  order was made by the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

while  admitting   the  writ  petitions,  allowing  them  to continue  their   studies  and  complete  their  Engineering course. The  record shows  that from  out OE these students, only two,  namely, Nilesh  Kumar  Malasia  and  T.M.  Mathur passed the  first year examination of the Engineering Degree course while  the rest  failed. It  is not known-at least it does not  appear from  the record-as  to whether  those  who failed appeared  again in  the first  year  examination  and cleared it.  The writ  petition filed by these students were placed for hearing along with Writ Petition No. 7744 of 1983 filed by  R.P. Mathur.  We shall for the sake of convenience refer to  the petitioners in all these writ petitions as the appellants.      Three contentions  in the  main were urged on behalf of the appellants  before the  learned single  Judge. The first contention  was   that  the  condition  of  eligibility  for admission to  the Engineering  Degree Course  had  not  been validly laid  down by the Karnataka University and hence the admission of  the appellants  could not  be cancelled on the ground  that   they  did   not  satisfy   the  condition  of eligibility and were accordingly not entitled to be admitted to the Engineering 921 Degree Course.  This contention was negatived by the learned Judge who pointed out that the Vice-Chancellor had laid down the condition  of eligibility  in exercise  of his emergency powers under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka Universities Act and his  action was  approved and  confirmed by the Academic Council and  the Syndicate  of the  University.  The  second contention urged  on behalf  of the  appellants was  that at least so  far as  those appellants  were concerned  who  had passed the B.Sc. first year examination of the University of Rajasthan or  Udaipur and  were admitted  to the Engineering Degree Course  on the  strength of  this qualification, they were eligible  for admission even according to the condition of eligibility  prescribed by the Karnataka University since the B.Sc.  first year  examination of  the  Universities  of Rajasthan and  Udaipur was  equivalent to the Pre-University Examination   of   the   Pre-University   Education   Board, Bangalore. But  in answer  to this contention it was pointed out on  behalf of  the respondents that the Academic Council of  Karnataka   University  had   accepted   the   following recommendation of the Committee set up by it for determining equivalence :           "Resolved to  recommend to  the  Academic  Council           that no  part examinations  of other  Universities           outside the  State of  Karnataka be  recognised as           equivalent to  the corresponding  course  of  this           University except  the Syndicate Resolution No. 39           of 26.5.79." The Academic Council had thus declined to recognise any part examination of  another  University  outside  the  State  of Karnataka as  equivalent to the corresponding examination of the Karnataka University and the B.Sc. Part-I Examination of the  Universities   of  Rajasthan  and  Udaipur  could  not, therefore, be regarded as equivalent to the B.Sc. first year examination of  the Karnataka  University and  a fortiori it could not  be considered as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and in  any event  it was  not recognised  as  such  by  the Karnataka University.  The appellants  when faced  with this argument were  constrained to adopt an extreme position that the condition  of eligibility  prescribed by  the  Karnataka University was  arbitrary and hence liable to be struck down as invalid. This contention was also rejected by the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Judge who pointed out that each University has got the power to 922 prescribe conditions of eligibility for admission to various courses in  the colleges  within its  jurisdiction  and  the condition  of   eligibility  prescribed   by  the  Karnataka University was  perfectly  valid  and  since  the  Karnataka University  had   not  recognised   the  first   year  B.Sc. examination of  any other  University outside  the State  of Karnataka as  equivalent to  the Pre-University  Examination held by  the Pre-University  Education Board, Bangalore, the appellants did  not satisfy the condition of eligibility and were accordingly  not eligible for admission. The appellants also relied  on the  plea of  equitable estoppel against the Karnataka University but that plea was also negatived by the learned Judge since admittedly no representation was made by the  Karnataka   University  on   the  basis  of  which  the appellants could be said to have altered their position. The learned Judge  pointed out that the Karnataka University did not make  any representation  or hold  out at any stage that passing of  the Higher Secondary Examination of the State of Rajasthan or  of the  first year  B.Sc. examination  of  the University of Rajasthan or Udaipur would make the appellants eligible for  admission to  the Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka  University. The  appellants lastly  submitted that  even  if  they  were  ineligible  for  admission,  the admission granted  to them  should not  be cancelled because they  had   been  pursuing   the  course  of  study  in  the Engineering  Degree   Course  for  over  a  year  and  their admission should not be disturbed as otherwise it would work great hardship  on them.  This submission  of the appellants was also  rejected by  the learned  Judge who  took the view that since  the appellants  were ineligible for admission to the Engineering  Degree Course  of the Karnataka University, any delay  in the  cancellation of their admission could not convert ineligibility  into eligibility  and this  was not a case  of   irregular  admission   where   less   meritorious candidates were  selected in  preference to more meritorious candidates but  it was  a case where candidates who were not eligible at  all for  admission were  admitted. The  learned Judge accordingly  upheld the  cancellation of the admission of the  appellants and  dismissed the  writ  petitions.  The appellants thereupon  filed appeals  against the decision of the learned  Judge before a Division Bench of the High Court but that  Division Bench agreeing with the view taken by the learned  Judge   dismissed  the   appeals  in   limine.  The appellants being  aggrieved by  the order  of  the  Division Bench dismissing their appeals preferred 923 the present  appeals with  special leave  obtained from this Court.      The appellants  did not  contend  before  us  that  the condition  of   eligibility  laid   down  by  the  Karnataka University was  not valid and binding. Indeed they could not possibly raised  this contention  because the  condition  of eligibility was laid down by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers under Section 12(5) of the Karnataka Universities Act  and his  action had been confirmed both by the Academic  Council and the Syndicate. The appellants also did not  rely on the plea of equitable estoppel since it was obvious that  the Karnataka  University  had  not  made  any representation to  the appellants  that  passing  of  Higher Secondary Examination  in the  State of  Rajasthan or of Ist year B.Sc.  examination of  the University  of Rajasthan  or Udaipur would  be  sufficient  to  make  them  eligible  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

admission to  the Engineering Degree Course of the Karnataka University  and   it  was  not  possible  to  say  that  the appellants had  altered that  position relying  on any  such representation. The  only contention  urged on behalf of the appellants was  that the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of  Secondary Education,  Rajasthan or  in  any  event first year B.Sc. examination of a University of Rajasthan or Udaipur  should  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  the  Per- University Examination  of Pre-University  Education  Board, Bangalore and  the appellants  who  had  passed  the  Higher Secondary Examination  of  the  Secondary  Education  Board, Rajasthan and  in any  event such  of the appellants who had passed the  first year B.Sc. examination of the Universities of  Rajasthan   and  Udaipur   satisfied  the  condition  of eligibility prescribed  by the Karnataka University and were therefore eligible  for admission  to the Engineering Degree Course of  the Karnataka  University. This  contention is in our opinion  wholly unsustainable and cannot be accepted. In the first  place it  may be noted that what the condition of eligibility laid  down by  the Karnataka University requires is that  the students  seeking admission  should have passed the  two   year  Pre-University   Examination  of  the  Pre- University Education Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it. The  examination held  by any  other Board or University which has been passed by the candidate must be recognised by the Karnataka University as equivalent to the two year 924 Pre-University Examination  of the  Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore.  The equivalence  has to be decided by the Karnataka University  and it  is not  a matter  of objective assessment or  evaluation by  the  Court.  It  is  for  each University to  decide the  question  of  equivalence  of  an examination held  by any  other Board or University with the examination  which   primarily  constitutes   the  basis  of eligibility.  Here   in  the   present  case  the  Karnataka University  did   not   recognise   the   Higher   Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan as equivalent  to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre- University  Education   Board,  Bangalore.  And  rightly  so because the  Higher Secondary  Examination of  the Secondary Education Board,  Rajasthan followed only 11 years schooling while the  Pre-University Examination  of the Pre-University Education Board,  Bangalore came  at the  end of 10+2 Course that is  12 years  study. The  Karnataka University also did not recognise  the  first  year  B.Sc.  examination  of  the Universities of  Rajasthan and  Udaipur as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination  of the  Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. In fact the academic Council took the view that first  year B.Sc. examination of any University outside the State of Karnataka could not be recognised as equivalent to  the  first  year  B.Sc.  examination  of  the  Karnataka University and  it would therefore seem to follow a fortiori that the  first year  B.Sc. examination  of the Rajasthan or Udaipur  University   was  not  regarded  by  the  Karnataka University as  equivalent to  the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. It is also evident from the second part of the condition of eligibility prescribed by the Karnataka University that if a student did not fall  in the  first part  he could be eligible under the second part  only if  he had  passed B.Sc.  examination with Physics, Chemistry  and Mathematics and that mere passing of first year  B.Sc. examination would not be enough. There can therefore be  no doubt that the appellants were not eligible for admission  to  the  Engineering  Degree  Course  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

Karnataka University and their admission was contrary to the Ordinance prescribing the condition of eligibility.      But it  was then  contended on behalf of the appellants as a  last alternative  that the  action  of  the  Karnataka University  in   not  recognising   the   Higher   Secondary Examination held by 925 the Secondary  Education Board,  Rajasthan and  in any event the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajsthan and Udaipur Universities as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of  the   Pre-University  Education   Board,  Bangalore  was abritrary  and   unreasonable.  We  cannot  accede  to  this contention. It  is difficult  to appreciate  how the  Higher Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan after only 11 years schooling could be regarded as equivalent to  the Pre-University  Examination of  the  Pre- University Education  Board, Bangalore  which  came  as  the culmination of  a full  12 years course of study. So also it is difficult to understand how the decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the first year B.Sc. examination of the  Rajasthan and  Udaipur Universities  as eqivalent to the  Pre-University   Examination  of   the   Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore could be regarded as arbitrary or fanciful. 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 courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction  and the  standard of  examination. It  is an academic question  in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken  by the  University. Here  we  find  that  no material has  been placed  before the  Court on the basis of which the Court could say that the decision of the Karnataka University not to recognise the Higher Secondary Examination of  the   State  of   Rajasthan  or  the  first  year  B.Sc. examination of  the Universities of Rajasthan and Udaipur as equivalent to  the Pre-University  Examination of  the  Pre- University Education  Board, Bangalore  was arbitrary or not based on  reasons. We  must therefore reject this contention urged on behalf of the appellants.      We accordingly  endorse the  view taken  by the learned Judge and  affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. But the  question still  remains whether we should allow the appellants to  continue  their  studies  in  the  respective Engineering Colleges  in which  they were  admitted. It  was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under  the   orders  initially  of  the  learned  Judge  and thereafter 926 of this  Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the  respective Engineering Colleges and their admissions should not  now be  disturbed because if they are not thrown out  after  a  period  of  almost  four  years  since  their admission their  whole future  will be  blighted. Now  it is true that  the appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering  Degree Course  and they  had no  legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for  their   wrongfuladmission  must   lie  more   upon  the Engineering Colleges  which granted  admission then upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that  neither the  Higher Secondary  Education  of  the Secondary Education  Board, Rajasthan  nor  the  first  year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

B.Sc. Examination  of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was  recognised   as  equivalent   to   the   Pre-University Examination   of   the   Pre-University   Education   Board, Bangalore.  The   appellants  being   young  students   from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year  B.Sc. Examination  of the  Rajasthan or  Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary  Examination of  the  Secondary  Education  Board,  Rajasthan  they  were eligible for  admission. The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges  which   admitted  the   appellants   because   the Principals of  these Engineering  Colleges must  have  known that the  appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the  sake of  capitation fee  in some  of the cases they granted admission  to the  appellants. We do not see why the appellants should  suffer for the sins of the managements of these   Engineering    Colleges.   We    would    therefore, notwithstanding the  view taken by us in this Judgment allow the appellants  to continue  their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges  in which  they were granted admission. But we  do feel that against the erring Engineering Colleges the Karnataka  University  should  take  appropriate  action because the  managements of  these Engineering Colleges have not only  admitted students  in eligible  for admission  but thereby deprived  an equal  number of eligible students from getting admission  to the Engineering Degree Course. We also endorse the  directions given  by the  learned Judge  in the penultimate  paragraph  of  his  Judgment  with  a  view  to preventing admission of ineligible students.      We  accordingly   dismiss  these  appeals  but  in  the circumstances of  the case  there will  be no  order  as  to costs. M.L.A.                                    Appeals dismissed. 927