HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16405 of 2009 DATED: 11.09.2009 Between: K. Sreenuvasula Reddy .. Petitioner And 1. The Convenor, LAWCET 2. The A.P. State Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad .. Respondents O R D E R: The petitioner states that he passed S.S.C. and studied I.T.I. for two years. Subsequently he completed B.Sc. degree from Alagappa University. That he applied for LLB course, and it is his grievance that the 1st respondent-Convenor, is not permitting him to attend the counseling and not granting him admission to any of the Law Colleges, for prosecuting 3 years LLB course, on the ground that the petitioner does not satisfy Instruction No.1.2 of the Instructions Booklet of LAWCET, 2009. Questioning the said action of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the course studied by the petitioner i.e. I.T.I. is equivalent to Intermediate course, but the action of the respondent in not treating I.T.I. course as equivalent to Intermediate course and not permitting him to attend the LLB counseling, is illegal and arbitrary, and prayed that directions be given to the 1st respondent to permit him to LLB counseling by treating ITI as equivalent to Intermediate course. The learned Standing Counsel for Venkateswara University appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner was directed to attend counseling on 08.08.2009 and 09.09.2009, but he did not attend the counselling on any of those days. He further submitted that I.T.I. course studied and passed by the petitioner is not equivalent to the Intermediate Course. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Venkateswara University appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material placed on record. As per instruction No. 1.2 of the Instructions Booklet of Lawcet – 2009, the applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation/post graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses. According to the petitioner, since he studied 2 year I.T.I. course, and the same being equivalent to Intermediate course, is entitled to admission in LLB course. However, the respondents disputed the same. The learned Standing Counsel for Board of Intermediate Education, produced a copy of the letter dated 10.09.2009 addressed by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, and submitted that I.T.I. is not recognized as equivalent to Intermediate. A perusal of the said letter discloses that as per policy decision taken by the Board of Intermediate in its 52nd Board Meeting vide item No.31, resolved that Polytechnic and ITI Courses are not considered as equivalent to two year Intermediate course of Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. Since I.T.I. course studied and passed by the petitioner is not equivalent to two year Intermediate Course, and the petitioner having not satisfied the basic requirement for admission into law course, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to LLB counseling. Hence, the writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 11.09.2009 bcj