Summarize the following court judgment. il Writ Petition 747 of 1985. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). S.R. Rangarajan and K.B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner. Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli Advocates for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK	 CJ. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by Baldev Raj Sharma against an order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana rejecting his application for enrolment as an advocate. On 4 March	 1972 the petitioner passed the Bachelor of Arts examination from the Punjabi University	 Patiala. In 1978 he joined the Bachelor of Laws (Academic) course in Kurukshetra University. The course is of two years ' dura tion. The petitioner completed the course and on 1 January	 1981 he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Academ ic) by the Kurukshetra University. During the year 198 1 the petitioner joined the LL.B. (Professional) course in the third year in Kanpur University as a regular student. The Kanpur University confers two distinct degrees	 LL.B. (General)	 which is a two year course	 and LL.B. (Profes sional)	 which is a three year course. A person who has been awarded the LL.B. (General) degree is eligible for admission to the LL.B	 (Professional) third year. The petitioner says that there is no distinction in the Rules and Regulations of the Kanpur University on whether LL.B. (General) course should be pursued by regular attendance or as a non collegi ate student. It is urged that the LL.B. degree of the Kanpur University is recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment as an advocate. The petitioner attended classes as a regular student of the LL.B 864 (Professional) Course third year of the Kanpur University as required by the Rules and Regulations framed by that Univer sity. He appeared in the final examination and was declared successful. On 22 July	 1982 the degree of LL.B. (Profes sional) was issued by the Kanpur University to him. Thereaf ter	 on 4 August	 1982 the petitioner applied to the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana with the necessary enrol ment fee for enrolment as an advocate under the . On 26 April	 1983 the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana denied enrolment to the petitioner as an advocate on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule 1(1)(c) of the Rules of the Bar Council of India framed under section 7(h) and (i)	 section 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia) and section 49(1)(d). The detailed grounds of refusal supplied to the petitioner by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana state that the petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree from the Kurukshetra University as a result of the examination held in April	 1980 as a private candi date. It was an LL.B. (Academic) degree obtained in two years ' study as a private candidate. The third year of law was pursued by him as a regular student from V.S.S.D. Col lege	 Kanpur of the Kanpur University from which institution he obtained the professional degree. It was further stated that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the provisions detailed earlier as he had passed his two years ' law course as a private candidate from Kurukshe tra University and the third year law only by regular at tendance at the V.S.S.D. College	 Kanpur. It appears that the State Bar Council	 upon receiving the application of the petitioner for enrolment as an advocate	 obtained the opin ion of the Bar Council of India and in conformity with that opinion the State Bar Council has refused enrolment. Section 24(1)(c) provides as follows: "24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act	 and the rules made thereunder	 a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll	 if he fulfils the following conditions	 namely: (c) he has obtained a degree in law (i) . . (ii) . . 865 (iii) after the 12th day of March	 1967	 save as provided in sub clause (iiia)	 after under going a three year course of study in law from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Coun cil of India; or (iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law	 the duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academ ic year 1967 68	 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is recog nised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India. " Sub clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 24(1) entitles a person to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he has obtained a degree in law after 12th March	 1967 after under going three years ' of study in law in any University in India recognised for the purposes of the by the Bar Council of India. An exception to this is provided by sub cl. (iii) of cl.(c)	 under which a person is quali fied for admission as an advocate if he has obtained a degree in law after undergoing a course of study in law	 the duration of which is not less than two academic years com mencing from the academic year 1967 68	 or any earlier academic year from any University in India recognised for the purposes of the Act by the Bar Council of India. The petitioner obtained a degree of Bachelor of Laws (Profes sional) from the Kanpur University in the examination of 1981. He had pursued the third year course only of study pertaining to that degree as a regular student 	of the V.S.S. 'D. College	 Kanpur in Kanpur University. The Bar Council of India has framed Rules under the . Rule 1(1)(c) of of the Bar Council of India Rules	 1975 provides that except as provided in section 24(1)(c)(iiia) of the a degree in law obtained from any University in the territory of India after 12th March	 1967 shall not be recognised for the purposes of section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act unless the conditions specified there are fulfilled	 including the condition "that the course of study in law has been by regular	 attendance at the requisite number of lectures	 tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University". These rules were replaced by a fresh set of rules in 1984 and the new Rule 1(1)(c) is almost identical. The Rule clearly requires that the course of study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures	 tutorials and moot courts and practical training. The Rule envisages that for the entire period of the law course there must be a regular attendance of the student before he can satisfy the conditions necessary for enrolment as an advocate under the . The Rules amplify what is intended in section 24(1)(c)(iii) 866 of the Act. The three years ' course of study envisaged by that subclause in the Act intends that the three years ' course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regu lar attendance. We are unable to say that there is any inconsistency between the Act and the Rule. So also in a case falling under cl. (iii) of section 24(1)(c) of the Act	 a course of study in law must be pursued for not less than two academic years in terms of that sub clause and Rule 1(1)(c) will apply to such a case also. There is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candi date. The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules indicates the great emphasis laid on regular attendance at the law classes. The conditions are specifically spelt out when the Act is read along with the Rules. When so read	 it is plain that a candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate under the must fulfil the conditions mentioned in section 24(1)(c)(iii) or section 24(1)(c)(iiia) read with Rule 1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules	 1975. In the present case the petitioner failed to do so. His application for enrolment was rightly reject ed. The writ petition is dismissed	 but in the circum stances	 there is no order as to costs. P.S.S. Petition dismissed.

Sub clause (iii) of cl. (c) of section 24(1) of the entitles a person to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he has obtained a degree in law after 12th March	 1967 after undergoing three years ' of study in law. Under sub cl. (iii) of cl. (c) a person is considered quali fied for admission as an advocate if he has obtained a degree in law after undergoing a course the duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academic year 1967 68 or any earlier academic year. Rule 1(1)(c) of of the Bar Council of India Rules	 1975 requires that the course of study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures	 tutorials and moot courts and practical training. The petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Laws (Aca demic) degree in 1980 as a private candidate. He then pur sued the third year of law as a regular student from the Kanpur University and obtained the professional degree in 1982. Thereafter	 he applied to the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for enrolment as an advocate under the Act. The State Bar Council denied enrolment on the ground that he had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule 1(1)(c) of the Rules. Dismissing the writ petition	 HELD: A candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate under the must fulfil the conditions mentioned in section 24(1)(c)(iii) or section 24(1)(c)(iiia) read with Rule 1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules	 1975. In the instant case	 the petitioner failed to do so. His applica tion for enrolment was	 therefore	 rightly rejected. [866C] Sub clause (iii) of section 24(1)(c) when read along with Rule 1(1)(c) 863 intends that the three years course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance. So also	 in a case failing under sub cl. (iiia) of section 24(1)(c) a course of study in law must be pursued for not less than two academic years and Rule l(1)(c) will apply to such a case also. The petitioner had passed his two year 's law course as a private candidate and the third year law only by regular attendance. He was	 therefore	 not entitled to be enrolled as an advo cate. [865H 866A	 864E]