BENGALURU: When a student is eligible for a degree course based on a job-oriented Industrial Training Institute (ITI) course or diploma, the university or its affiliated college cannot deny admission to the student for the LLB course on the ground that the student secured an ITI course instead of PUC, said the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Shamasundar from Bagalkot district.
While praying the court to quash the endorsement dated June 2, 2025, issued by Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), the petitioner requested the court to issue a direction to the university to issue an eligibility certificate to him based on BA degree completed by him and allow him admission in any of its affiliated law colleges for admission to three-year law course in response to his application dated June 1, 2025.
Accepting both the prayers of the petitioner, the court said that when it is submitted that in the ITI course, a language is not part of the curriculum, the question of imposing a condition that the student should have studied a language in the ITI course, which is not part of the curriculum, is completely devoid of merit and indicates the non-application of mind on the part of the Education Department insofar as the notification dated March 12, 2025 is concerned.
Therefore, the Education Department would have to have a relook at this and consider the ground realities of no language being offered as a subject in the ITI course and issue suitable directions, the court added.
The petitioner, after completing the ITI course in 2015,did a Bachelor of Arts from Rani Channamma University. He had applied for admission to the Bachelor of Laws 3-year course in KSLU. He also approached several law colleges that were affiliated with KSLU.
However, he was informed that his application could not be accepted, citing the notification dated March 12, 2025, issued by the Education Department, requiring a candidate to have taken up a language as a subject in ITI. Since the same had not been done, the petitioner’s application was not accepted, and an endorsement was issued by the university. Therefore, he approached the high court.