The court emphasized the requirement for candidates to have pursued education up to 12th standard in a regular stream for admission to the five year Integrated B.L. degree course and upheld the authority of the State Government or University to prescribe higher norms for admission to promote excellence in education.

1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner, who has passed Plus Two (+2) examinations, not in regular stream, has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Law University to admit her in the first year of five year integrated B.L. Degree course in Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai for the academic year 2011-2012.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to M.B.C. community, passed 10th standard examinations held in March, 2009, and appeared for 12th Standard examinations as a private candidate in March, 2011. The petitioner applied for admission to five year Integrated B.L. Degree course offered by Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai-28. According to the petitioner, she having passed 12th standard in one attempt, she is entitled to be admitted in the first year of the five year integrated law course and she applied for the same. The petitioner was called upon to attend the counselling on 9.7.2011 at 9.00 a.m. and she attended the counselling, however the respondent University refused to issue any selection/admission letter to the petitioner on the ground that she passed Plus Two examinations as a private candidate and not underwent the 10+2 regular course, which is fixed as the eligibility for admission in the five year integrated law course. The petitioner sought for clarification from the respondent and the officials of the respondent informed that the University is awaiting clarification from the Bar Council of India as to whether higher secondary student, who passed not under the regular stream, is eligible to be admitted or not. The petitioner having waited for some time, approached this Court with the above said prayer.

4. When the writ petition was posted for admission on 12.8.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to service notice to the standing Counsel for the respondent University, who on instructions opposed the prayer in the writ petition.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that she having passed Plus Two with 69% of marks, is eligible to be admitted as the minimum prescribed marks for admission is only 45% of marks in Plus Two examinations and there is no prohibition to admit candidates passed under private study to seek admission and therefore the action of the respondent in not issuing admission card to the petitioner for joining in the Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai, in spite of availability of vacancies is unsustainable and illegal.

6. The learned standing Counsel for the respondent University on the other hand submitted that the University is strictly adhering to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Bar Council of India from time to time and the Bar Council of India in Rules, para 4, Chapter 2(5) prescribed eligibility for admission to Law courses, wherein it is stated that applicants, who have obtained +2/Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or first degree certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission to the five year Integrated BL degree course or three year course as the case may be. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner having studied Plus Two in private mode, is not eligible to be admitted and the Bar Council of India was addressed in this regard and no clarification is received so far. The learned counsel also submitted that in private study, there is no continuous assessment of students; no interaction between teacher and student; no class assignment; no assessment; and no tests are conducted and therefore the students may not be equipped on par with the regular stream students. Therefore the University resolved that private students are not eligible to take law course. In correspondence and distance education mode, the students are attending contact programmes, seminars, assessment of assignments, etc., and in pr