ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by cancellation of his admission in LL.B. First Year on the ground that he was not having requisite percentage of 45% in the qualifying examination. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner possessed 41.89% marks in graduation. He appeared in the entrance test for admission in 3 years LL.B. course in which 40% marks in graduation were required. As he fulfilled the criteria he was permitted to participate in the entrance examination and admission was given to him, but suddenly his admission was cancelled on the ground that he was having 41.89% marks in graduation, not 45% as required. Petitioner filed a representation which was not considered. Hence, petition has been preferred. 3. In the return filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 it is contended that Bar Council of India has framed the Rules of Legal Education and as per Part-IV Chapter II, Rule 7 minimum marks to be obtained in the qualifying examination is 45% in the case of general category candidates for admission in 3 years LL.B. course. The guidelines dated 22.5.2009 framed by the College were not in tune with the rules of legal education framed by the Bar council of India having statutory force. When said fact came to the notice, error was rectified vide letter dt. 25.7.2009, it was clarified that for 5 years course and also for 3 years LL.B. course, the minimum qualifying marks are fixed as 45% for general category candidates as prescribed by the Bar Council of India. Petitioner was admitted on 23.7.2009 and order of cancellation was passed on 7.8.2009 without two weeks of admission. No case is made out so as to interfere in the writ petition. 4. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that admission was rightly given in view of admission bulletin for LL.B. First Semester published by the Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur in which it was mentioned in paras 4 and 12 that admission in the First Year has to be on the basis of entrance examination in qualifying examination and graduation or post-graduation incumbent must possess 40% marks. Guidelines (P/3) issued by Higher Education Department in para 5.3 has also been relied upon by the petitioner which provides that for admission in the First Year Course of LL.B. in case entrance test is conducted 40% marks are required and in graduation/post-graduation and 45% incase entrance examination is not conducted. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have relied upon the Bar Council of India Rules framed under the Advocates Act contained in Part- N. Chapter II, Rule 7 of BCI Rules. The BCI has prescribed the standard vide Resolution No. 110/2008 which came in force w.e.f. 14.9.2008. The resolution provides that minimum percentage in the qualifying examination should not be below 45% of the total marks in case of general category candidate and 40% of total marks in case of SCIST candidates. It is contended that it was not open to the State Govt. or to University to violate the binding directive of BCI, thus, the guidelines which were framed by University and State Govt. were corrected to bring them in tune with the Rule 7 contained in Part IV, Chapter II of BCI Rules. 6. No doubt about it that in the admission guidelines issued by the University and the State Govt. it was provided that minimum percentage for general category candidate is 40% in case admission is by holding entrance examination and in case it is not conducted qualifying percentage in the graduation/post graduation had been fixed at 45%. However, said guidelines are in contravention of BCI Rules Rule 7 contained in Chapter II, Part IV of the BCI Rules framed under the Advocates Act which have the statutory force. BCI has power to prescribe the standard for the purpose of standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for the purpose of enrolment as advocate and inspection of Universities for recognizing its degree in law under sections 7 (1) (h) and (i), 24 (1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 29 (1)(at) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 the rules have statutory force Rule 7 contained in Chapter II of Part IV of Bar Council of India Rules is as follows: "7 . Minimum marks in qualifying examination for admission. Minimum marks in qualifying examination for admission. Bar Council of India may from time to time, stipulates the minimum percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks in case of general category applicants and 40% of the total marks in case of SC and ST applicants, to be obtained for the qualifying examination, such as +2 Examination in case of Inter grated Five Years' course of Degree course in any discipline for Three years' LL.B. course, for the purpose of applying for and getting admitted into a Law Degree Program of any recognized University in either of the streams. Provided that such a minimum qualifying marks shall not automatically entitled a person to get admission into an institution but only shall entitle the person concerned to fulfill other institutional criteria notified by the institution concerned or by the government concerned from time to time to apply for admission." It is apparent from Rule 7 of the a for said rules that Bar Council of India has prescribed minimum percentage of marks not below 45% in case of general category and 40% in case of SCIST candidates to be obtained in the qualifying examination, such as +2 examination in case of integrated five years' course or in Degree course in any discipline for admission in three years' LL.B. course. It is pre-requisite for admission into the law degree programme of any recognized University in either scheme. Proviso also makes it clear that the person who possess minimum qualifying marks has also to fulfill other institutional criteria notified by the institution concerned or by the government concerned from time to time "to apply for admission". By making provision of entrance test institutional criteria has been prescribed, but in no case it was open to the University to violate the directive of the BCI contained in Rule 7, Chapter II, Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule is mandatory and it could not have been bypassed by making the provisions of entrance test. The prescribing of 40% marks in the qualifying examination for 3 years course amounted to dilution of the mandatory direction of the BCI. Bar Council of India has prescribed aforesaid standard in exercise of various provisions of Advocate Act referred to above. Rule is mandatory and it could not have been bypassed by making the provisions of entrance test. The prescribing of 40% marks in the qualifying examination for 3 years course amounted to dilution of the mandatory direction of the BCI. Bar Council of India has prescribed aforesaid standard in exercise of various provisions of Advocate Act referred to above. Realizing the mistake the respondents have rightly cancelled the admission and it was rightly realized by the State Government and the College that such a dilution of the standard prescribed by the BCI is not permissible. Admission was cancelled within 15 days. It cannot be said that the action taken was illegal in any manner. It was in accordance with mandatory directive of BCI. The guidelines (P/2, P/3) which were framed were not in tune of mandatory directive of the BCI. The State and University had realized their mistake and rightly taken the curative steps. 7. We do not fine any merit in the submission of counsel that the petitioner be awarded compensation as he was wrongly admitted in the course. His admission was cancelled within 15 days. However, as conceded by counsel appearing for respondent the admission fee and tuition fee which may have been deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner. 8. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition, same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.