Pradeep Kant, A. Mateen - (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 18.7.2003 by means of which the learned Single Judge has stayed the operation of Condition No. 3 of the Ordinance and has also directed that while -holding the selection for admission to LL.M. Course, the condition No. 6 of the Ordinance shall not be imposed against the students who have obtained the Law Degree either in 2001 or in 2002. The writ petition in which the aforesaid order has been passed has been filed by Neerav Chitravanshi, a student, who has cleared the LL.B. (Hons.) Examination which is a five years course, challenging the aforesaid two conditions of the Ordinance issued for admission to LL.M. Course by the Lucknow University. Condition Nos. 3 and 6 of the Ordinance, which have been challenged in the writ petition, are reproduced below: (3) Of the total number of 60 seats in LL.M. Class, 80% seats shall be filled up from amongst Lucknow University Law Graduates out of which 25% seats shall be reserved for five years LL.B. (Hons.) Course of Lucknow University. The remaining seats shall be filled up from amongst students of LL.B. three years. This scheme for admission shall continue till the students of both the courses pass LL.B. with uniform pattern of examination. (6) Period in between the year of passing the qualifying examination and year of application shall be treated as gap and 2% of the marks obtained in qualifying examination shall be deducted for the each gap year subject to maximum gap of three years. Those having a gap of more than three years shall not be eligible for admission.
(2.) IT is the fixation of quota of admission of students, who have passed LL.B. three years course as against the students, who have passed LL.B. (Hons.) Course, which is the subject -matter of adjudication in the writ petition. Condition No. 3 fixes a quota of 80% seats from amongst the Lucknow University Law Graduates out of which 25% seats shall be reserved for five -years LL.B. (Hons.) Course of Lucknow University and the remaining seats will be filled in from amongst the students of LL.B. three years course. This scheme for admission shall continue till the students of both the courses pass LL.B. with uniform pattern of examination. As a result of the aforesaid provision, out of total number of 60 seats in LL.M. Class, 12 seats have been earmarked for students who have cleared LL.B. five years course and remaining 36 seats would go to the students, who have passed LL.B. three years course. The fixation of the aforesaid quota of LL.B. (Hons.) as well as LL.B. three years course in the matter of admission to LL.M. Class was, prima facie, not found to be reasonable by the learned Single Judge, who has stayed the operation of the aforesaid conditions, thus leaving open to the University to adopt any other reasonable criteria for admission. The University has, however, decided that admission to LL.M. Class be made on the basis of the merit obtained by the students in their respective examination irrespective of the fact as to whether the student has cleared LL.B. three year degree course or LL.B. (Hons.) five years course. The appellants, namely, Amit Jaiswal and Meetu Singh, who have passed LL.B. three years course felt dissatisfied with the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, have preferred this appeal. The petitioner, in the writ petition, did not implead any student or group of students who have passed LL.B. three year course, compelling the appellants to challenge the interim order by means of the special appeal. Since the appellants felt aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, they have a right to maintain the appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants while impugning the order under challenge submitted that since the course which is pursued by a student in LL.B. three years course is substantially different from the course which student of LL.B. five years course is to study and clear and that the system of examination and the manner of awarding marks is altogether different in the two course, therefore, the quota was rightly fixed under the Ordinance. It has been additionally argued that the quota of 25% seats out of 80% seats in favour of LL.B. (Hons.) students and the remaining 75% seats in favour of students of LL.B. three years course has been provided looking to the large number of students who undertake LL.B. three years course as against limited number of students in LL.B. five years course. According to the appellants, there are about 1600 students who have passed LL.B. three years course and only 190 students have passed LL.B. five years course.;