JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave against the order dated 30th July, 1987 of the High Court of Orissa.

2. The appellant passed his M.A. examination in July, 1981 securing in the aggregate 364 marks out of 900 marks, i.e., more than 40 per cent of the total marks. In 1983, he secured admission in Ganjam Law College for three-years Law Course. There is no dispute that at the time he took admission, he had submitted his mark-sheet along with his M.A. degree certificate. The appellant completed his first year course known as the "Pre-Law Course" and in 1984 was promoted to the second year course known as the "Intermediate Law Course". In 1985, he appeared for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examination held by the Berhampur University to which the Ganjam Law College is affiliated. He gave the said examination and in the same year he was admitted to the Final Law course in the same College.

3. It appears that although he was admitted to the Final Law classes, his results for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations were not declared. The appellant made representations to the Bar Council of India and the Administrator of the Berhampur University, on February 12, 1986. On October 30, 1986, the University replied that since the appellant had secured less than 39.5 per cent marks in his M.A. degree examination, he was not eligible for admission to the Law Course. On November 11, 1986, the appellant made a representation pointing out that he had secured more than 40 per cent marks in the said examination and, therefore, he was entitled to be admitted to the Law course. On November 14, 1986, the Chairman of the Board of Studies also wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the University pointing out that the Board of Studies in its meeting held on October 29, 1986 had recommended that those students who had passed their M.A. examination and had secured more than 40 per cent of the total marks should be considered eligible for admission to the Law course. even though they had secured less than 20 per cent marks in any one of the papers in the said examination.

4. In spite of this, the University did not take any step to announce the appellants results. Hence, the appellant approached the Orissa High Court by a writ petition on May 11, 1987 challenging the non-declaration of his results and the Universitys refusal to permit the appellant to appear in the Final Law Examination. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order of July 30, 1987. Against the said decision the present appeal was filed. By an interim order of March 15, 1988, the appellant was permitted to continue his Final Law course and to appear in the examination of the said course. It was also directed that the results of the examinations in which the appellant had appeared should be declared in due course.

5. On these facts, the question that falls for consideration is whether the appellant was eligible to be admitted to the Law course. The University has objected to the appellants admission, on the ground that the University Regulation I in Chapter VIII relating to the Bachelor of Laws Examination (Three-Year Course) read with Regulation 10 in Chapter V of the University Regulation relating to the Masters Degree Examination requires that if the student has secured less than 25 per cent marks in any of the papers for M.A. examination, he should have on the aggregate more than 39.5 per cent marks in the said examination. Admittedly, the appellant has obtained in the aggregate 364 marks out of the 900 marks, i.e., more than 40 per cent marks, but in one paper in Group-II, he has secured only 13 marks out of 100 which were less It than 25 per cent. It is, therefore, the Universitys contention that in view of the said Regulations, he was not qualified to be admitted to the Law course and since he was admitted wrongly, he was not entitled to appear for the examination and, therefore, for the declaration of his results in the said examination.

6. Regula