Honble MUKHERJI, C.J.–The writ petitioner-appellant was a graduate in law having passed the LL.B. third year examination from B.J.S. Rampurai Jain College, Bikaner under Maharishi Dayanand University, Ajmer. His attendance in the LL.B. first, second and third year classes was above 66% as was required under the law and he duly submitted an application for getting himself enrolled on 29th March, 1996. On 31.3.1993, an order was passed by the Enrolment Committee that the applicant be directed to file an attendance certificate, but this order was not communicated to him in writing. It is submitted by the State Bar Council that the writ petitioner appellant was him self present in the Bar Council Office and he could gather the necessary information about the passing of the order by the Enrolment Committee. This fact is however denied by the writ petitioner-appellant. Be that as it may, according to the submission of the State Bar Council, the writ petitioner appellant furnished the certificate as to the attendance in the LL.B. classes on 8th of April, 1996. On 22nd June, 1996, the Enrolment Committee passed an order to the following effect :- "The applicant has filed this application for enrolment before 2.4.1996. However, the application was defective and was not complete before 2.4.1996. Hence, the applicant was given time to remove the defects. The defects have now been removed. The applicant be asked to undergo training as per the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1996." (2). We do not find anywhere in the Rules that an attendance certificate is a pre-requisite for enrolment, but then we find in the Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for Admission as Advocate, there is a stipulation to the effect that the law degree has to be obtained after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of three years as provided in these rules and that the course of study in law has to be so done by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognized by the University. (3). The writ petitioner appellant however produced an attendance certificate wherefrom it is revealed that he has attended 66% of lectures for all the three years of his law course. (3). The writ petitioner appellant however produced an attendance certificate wherefrom it is revealed that he has attended 66% of lectures for all the three years of his law course. Having been refused a direct enrolment with the Bar Council, he had to opt for the training course as prescribed by the Bar Council. Even with regard to the Bar Council allowing him to undergo the necessary training, the Bar Council was initially not satisfied that the attendance certificate which he produced showed his attendance as to the minimum 66% lectures for all the three years of his law course. Therefore, his training was also provisionally so granted and it was made clear that he would not be entitled to claim enrolment without a proper certificate of attendance and he was directed to be informed of this fact. (4). Since we were not satisfied ourselves that the Rules for enrolment with the Bar Council as it stood on the date of the application contained a provision as regards the attendance certificate to be furnished alongwith the application form, we think that the application of the writ petitioner-appellant ought not have been rejected at that stage. On 6.4.1996, the certificate that he furnished from the Princi- pal, B.J.S. Rampuria Jain College, Bikaner was to the effect that the writ petitioner- appellant appeared as a regular student and passed in LL.B. third year examination as a regular student. Unless he would have attended the minimum of lectures prescribed as per Rules, he ought not to have been allowed to appear in the LL.B. examination, but that fact was unfortunately ignored by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. (5). Unless he would have attended the minimum of lectures prescribed as per Rules, he ought not to have been allowed to appear in the LL.B. examination, but that fact was unfortunately ignored by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. (5). We fail to appreciate the stand taken by the Bar Council that having written to the University not to allow any candidate to appear in the examination unless he has attended the minimum number of 66% of the lectures in each of the subjects as also at tutorials and Moot Courts while conferring the power on the Dean of the Faculty of Law and the Principals of the Law Colleges to condone such attendance if the students had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the Semester or examination, as the case may be, it would still insist on the attendance certificate without incorporating in the Rules that such attendance certificate coming from the Principal would be an essential pre- requisite for submission of the application itself. (6). In that view of the matter, we would direct the Bar Council of Rajasthan to process the application of the writ petitioner- appellant as a regular application as if he was equipped with all the pre-requisites for enrolment in accordance with the law. It is desirable that the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council should apply its mind and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one month from this date. (7). We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the special appeal accordingly.