R. Sachar, J.
(1) This is a rather unhappy case of the result of the various changes (according to some people) of haphazard and not very well thought out period of schooling that is inflicted on the children.
(2) Previously there used to be 11+3 for getting a B.A. degree. The petitioner is one of those who got her B.A. pass and secured 56'5% marks. That was about a decade back.
(3) Some years back the academicians thought that 11+3 did not suit and they switched over to 10+2+3 ; the result is that to get a B.A. degree one has to spend 15 years as compared to 14 years studies by the petitioner. Evidently, the problems of Post Graduate Admission cropped up for the purpose of M.A. classes as well as Law classes.
(4) The Delhi University which is running the law courses had this matter considered by the Law Admission Committee under ordinance No. 2 of the University Calendar. After looking into the various matters it took the decision that those who have passed B.A. under 11+3 and want admission to Law Faculty will have a handicap of 5% marks- meaning that in case of the petitioner v/ho had obtained 56'5/o marks it will be deemed to be 51'5/o. This year in the first batch of those who have schooling in 10+2+3 for admission to law college there was no such handicap in their case with the result that the petitioner who might have obtained admission if her marks were taken at 56'5/o but has been denied admission because students with higher marks than 51.51% belonging to 10+2+3 batch were available. Mr. Sen says that this is a violation of the equality clause because the requirement for admission in law course is of a B.A. degree and the petitioner having obtained a B.A. degree should be allowed to compete on an equal level even with those who have obtained B.A. degree after 15 years. We cannot agree that there is absolutely no difference in course or studies between those who have had 14 years formal stream of schooling and the students who have had 15 years schooling. For all Post Graduate admission this difference is being recognised. The reply has mentioned in the counter affidavit that for M.A. course a student who had done his B.A. on 11+3 course will have to do a special course which is for one year before being allowed to seek admission in the M.A. It is stated that at one time the Law Admission Committee also toyed with the same idea of providing a special course for LL.B. but later on the Faculty of Law decided that this may be less harsh if the present system of handicap of 5% was extended to students of 14 years system. In the matter of comparison of courses the decisions of the experts like the Admission Course Committee, the Academic Council and the University authorities must necessarily be accepted by the courts and should not be disturbed unless they are manifestly perverse. On an apparent comparison of 14 years stream of education and 15 years if the University authorities have bonafide taken view that 5% handicap in case of students like the petitioner will suffer no adverse comparison and will be on par with a student of 15 years stream, we cannot say that it is a decision which is so unreasonable as to call for interference in these proceedings. We sympathise with the petitioner in her effort to join the learned fraternity and we are sorry that this court cannot be of any assistance to her. We can only hope that her persistence and determined efforts will be met with success and she will be able to get admission in the University this year or in any case by next year. With these observations the petition is dismissed.