By the Court.—Heard Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this special appeal be decided at this stage, without calling for any further affidavits.

3. This is a special appeal against the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 11th November, 2008, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, Vinay Gupta has been allowed.

4. Brief facts necessary for appreciating the issues raised in the special appeal are as follows :

The appellant University published a notice for admission to LL.B. three years degree course. The respondent No. 1 applied in pursuance thereof and was permitted to appear in the entrance test, in which out of nearly 4,000 students he secured 35th position. However, he was not granted admission by the University on the ground that he did not have 45% marks at the graduation level. The denial of admission was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid writ petition, the writ petition has been allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

5. The Hon’ble Single Judge under the impugned judgment has held that the circular of Bar Council of India dated 19th September, 1997 has been misinterpreted by the University. The petitioner-respondent No. 1 cannot be denied admission after declaration of the results of Entrance Test, as he had not concealed or misrepresented any fact at the time of filing of the admission form or at any other stage. It has further been observed that in case the petitioner did not have required minimum percentage at graduation level, it was for the University to reject the admission form of the petitioner at the threshold.

6. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-University challenging the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge contended that there is no dispute to the minimum requirements provided by the Bar Council of India vide circular dated 19th September, 1997. He submits that under said circular if there is an entrance test, the minimum percentage of marks to have been achieved by the candidate appearing in the Entrance Test at the graduation level should be 40%. If there is no entrance test, the pass percentage at the Graduation Level should be 45% for LL.B. Admission. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute that entrance test has been held for admission to LL.B. Three Years degree Course by the University. The University had decided that even for candidates undergoing the entrance test, those who have obtained at least 45% marks at the graduation level would alone be eligible for being considered for admission.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that such prescription of higher marks does not violate any of the provision of the circular of the Bar Council of India and is legally permissible. In support thereof, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others, (2004) 4 SCC 513.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposing the contention raised on behalf of the University submits that requirement of at least 45% marks at the graduation level by the University for being eligible for being considered for admission to LL.B. Three years degree course is contrary to the circular issued by the Bar Council of India. He submits that the circular issued by the Bar Council of India is binding upon all the Universities so far as law courses are concerned. He clarifies that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 had not concealed or misrepresented any fact at the time of filling of the admission form. The University ought to have rejected the form itself, if the petitioner was not eligible and should not have permitted the respondent No. 1 to appear in the entrance test. Having permitted the respondent No. 1 to undertake the entrance test, the Univer