E ASHOK KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR GULBARGA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner, (ashok kumar), obtained 97 marks in the first paper inbotany, zoology and chemistry and 194 marks in paper ii. Paper irepresented the first year marks and paper ii represented the second yearmarks in 10+2 course in andhra pradesh. 97 marks in the relevant subj ects isout of 230, and 194 marks is out of 360 during the second year. He joinedb.a.m.s. course in the ayurvedic medical college, bidar. Now he has beenheld to be ineligible by the university of gulbarga on the ground that theminimum marks of 50% should be obtained by taking marks obtained in boththe years as in Andhra Pradesh board, because as per the regulations of theandhra pradesh board both the marks are to be taken into consideration foreligibility. It is explained by Sri patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, thateven the board at Andhra Pradesh was considering the marks of both theyears only for the purpose of awarding ranks and not for the purpose ofcontinuing higher studies. The question is whether the petitioner is eligible tojoin the professional course in karnataka.the question will have to be answered with reference to eligibilityprescribed by the authorities in Karnataka and not by reference to Rules orregulations in andhra pradesh. So long as a candidate satisfies the eligibilityprescribed in Karnataka such a candidate's case shall have to be consideredby applying the provisions made in karnataka. In the instant case thepetitioners case is governed by the eligibility prescription framed by thegulbarga university. The relevant provisions read as follows:

(2.) as per the above provision the student must have passed two years pucexamination of the puc examination board, bangalore. Students who havepassed in other examinations recognised as equivalent, as provided above,are also eligible. However, they should have studied english as one of thelanguages and physics, chemistry and biology as optional subjects. Furthera minimum of 50% of marks in the aggregate of the relevant science subjectsof the second year puc examination is necessary. The equivalencerecognised by the gulbarga university provides for recognising "10+2"course of the andhra pradesh. In other words the puc examination held inkarnataka is equated to 10+2 course of andhra pradesh.(emphasis supplied) however, the university contends in the present case that for the purposeof computing the percentage of marks in the aggregate of the relevant sciencesubjects, the marks obtained in respect of both the years in andhra pradeshshall have to be taken into consideration because that was the rule in andhrapradesh. There is nothing in the regulation framed by the gulbargauniversity incorporating a similar regulation framed by other universities orboards. The regulation quoted above provides for recognising and acceptingany other examination considered as equivalent to that of puc of karnataka.puc in Karnataka is a two year course; however, the examination isconducted only at the end of second year in respect of the second year courseand the said marks are only considered. That is also clear from the regulationwhich I have quoted already. Nowhere the regulation or the order providingfor recognising the equivalence states that whenever marks cards are issuedfor two years together then the said marks for two years shall have to be takennote of and only the said marks could be equated to the second year marks ofthe puc examination of karnataka. When puc of Karnataka is consideredas equal to 10+2 of the Andhra Pradesh the equivalence recognised shouldpermeate not only the entire course but also the different stages of the samecourse, in the absence of any regulation to the contra.

(3.) mr. S.s. koti, learned counsel for the university, relied on a decision ofthis court in s, harinath reddy v Bangalore university, 1989(3) Kar. L.j. 25: ILR 1990 kar. 457. The relevant facts found at para 5 shows that in the saidcase the marks obtained by the candidate during 2 year course wereconsidered for the purpose of equating the examination held at andhrapradesh (hyderabad) to the puc examination of karnataka. However, in thesaid case there was no consideration of the present question. The court wasnot called upon to decide as to whether only the second year marks should beconsidered as equal to the second year puc of karnataka. Therefore the saiddecision will not be of any avail to Mr. Koti. the admission of the petitioner was cancelled because he obtained 291out of 600 which is 48.5% but this 291 out of 600 is the total marks in respectof the two years. I have already noted that the petitioner obtained 194 marksout of 360 in the second year of the examination held by the board of andhrapradesh. This is certainly more than 50%.