SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.

The petitioner, who is the appellant herein, completed Matriculation in the year 2008 from Bharathidasan Matriculation School and within one year, completed Plus 2 course in 2009. Thereafter, he sought admission to B.Com. degree course in SRM University and passed the same in First class in May, 2013. A degree certificate was granted on 9th February, 2014. On the basis of the graduation in B.Com., the petitioner / appellant sought admission to three year LLB degree course for the academic year 2015-16 in the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, the first respondent herein. But, admission to the said course was denied on the ground that the appellant had not completed 10+ 2 examination on regular basis and as such, does not possess basic qualification for admission to three year LLB degree course. Denial of admission prompted the appellant to file the instant writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent University to admit the petitioner in the Government Law College at Chengalput.

2. The learned Single Judge, examining all aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion as under :

“6. Proviso to Rule 5 deals with integrated five year course as well as the three year L.L.B. Course as the case may be. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proviso has to be made applicable to the Rule 5(b) alone cannot be accepted. Tenth, +2 is the basic qualification both for three year course as well as the integrated degree programme. Now, this proviso has been explained through the explanation. Thus, the explanation clearly explains the proviso. Therefore, there is no apparent conflict as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary in order to make the proviso very clear, the explanation has come into being. It is meant to clear any possibility of doubt with respect to the understanding of the proviso. The explanation clearly speaks about the qualification of the 10th standard from open university system. Thus the students, on completion of the tenth standard through the open university system without any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for the law course. Therefore, it is very clear that where standard adopted from the Open University system is not a bar it has to confine to the basic qualification viz., Studied upto 10th standard otherwise anybody who has not completed the tenth standard would become automatically eligible for admission in the law course which is not intention as seen from the explanation. The petitioner does not have a vested right to claim under Rule 5(b). Merely because a call letter is issued, he cannot claim any right for admission. Similarly, there is no difference between the candidate completed upto eighth standard and anything lesser as the position remains the same. There is no estoppel against the statute. Similarly, there is no scope of reading down a provision made so when there is an explanation available.”

and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the instant intra-court appeal.

3. The question that arises for our consideration is whether a candidate, who has obtained 10+ 2 schooling certificate in 8 + 1 + 2 years before obtaining graduation in Commerce, is eligible for admission to three year Law course under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short “the Rules of Legal Education”) framed in exercise of powers under Section 7(1)(h) and (i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with the eligibility criteria for admission under the Information Bulletin 2015-2016 (for short “the eligibility criteria for admission”) issued by the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the basic qualification for admission to three year LL.B. course is graduation. The appellant has obtained graduation through regular course. The appellant had studied 8th standard u