JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):- The appellant seeks to assail the impugned order of learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2013 holding that the appellant was not qualified to take admission into the LL.B course. Thus, in effect, puts at nought two years of his education period. 2. The appellant obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) (Information Technology) in first division from the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The appellant participated in the centralized counseling for admission to the three years’ LL.B course for the academic session 2012-13 and was offered a seat in Guru Nanak Dev University, regional centre at Jalandhar, pursuant whereto, he was granted admission against deposit of requisite fee. However, he shifted to Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (main campus) in the second counseling. 3. The travails of the appellant began with a communication dated 01.11.2012 of respondent no. 1 informing the appellant that he did not possess the requisite qualifications for admission to the LL.B course. 4. The case of the appellant is that he concealed nothing – the Punjab Technical University had issued a Certificate that the degree obtained by the appellant was equivalent to B.Sc.(IT) LE Degree Course and the Distance Education, under which the appellant has obtained degree of the B.Sc., is also recognized by the Punjab Technical University. 5. The reason for disqualification, as disclosed by the respondents, is that the appellant had suppressed facts as he had only produced the degree of Bachelor of Science, which in turn, did not mention that the appellant had taken admission as a Lateral Entry and that he had passed the B.Sc. from the Learning Centre of Distance Education of two years’ duration. The Academic Council of the Guru Nanak Dev University, where the appellant opted for his admission, had taken a decision in a meeting held on 12.02.2008 against accepting cases of Lateral Entry. The Lateral Entry permitted the appellant to start from the second year of the course and he had also obtained the degree under the Distance Mode of Education, which could not be equated to three years’ degree of B.Sc. (IT). In a nut-shell, it was stated that it would amount to equalization of two years’ course as against the pre-requisite of three years’ course for seeking admission. 6. (IT). In a nut-shell, it was stated that it would amount to equalization of two years’ course as against the pre-requisite of three years’ course for seeking admission. 6. It is the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the respondents, which found favour with learned Single Judge and the operative portion of the impugned order, which contained the reason is as follows :- “Since the petitioner has passed by B.Sc. (IT) from the Learning Centre under the Distance Mode of Education and taken admission in B.Sc. through Lateral Entry, therefore, he is covered in that exception, which has been provided in the Academic Council Meeting. Once the petitioner is not found eligible, he cannot be allowed to agitate at this stage that he has already taken admission and studied for 4-5 months in the LL.B Course. If a student is not qualified for admission in a particular course which is ultimately surfaces because of some investigation, the said person cannot take the plea of equity for the purpose of continuing in the said course. Thus finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.” 7. It has been submitted before us by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant completed his 10+2 course of study. During his +2 stage of study, the appellant also simultaneously pursued a diploma course privately of three years. The two years’ part of the diploma course was thus carried on parallel to the +2 stage, while last year of the diploma course was completed thereafter. It is on this basis of the extra one year, which has already been done, that Lateral Entry was permitted to the appellant granting him exemption from the first year of the degree course. 8. In our view, the academic philosophy is that before seeking admission to the LL.B course, a person should have pursued 10+2 study along with further course of three years. The facts of the present case show that this test stands satisfied. This is so as the parallel carrying-on of the Diploma Course of three years by the appellant at the +2 stage implies that he had done one year extra, while obtaining the Diploma. The facts of the present case show that this test stands satisfied. This is so as the parallel carrying-on of the Diploma Course of three years by the appellant at the +2 stage implies that he had done one year extra, while obtaining the Diploma. It is thereafter that he joined the degree Course, where Lateral Entry was permitted into the second year and thus, undisputedly, the total course of study of the appellant was for three years post the 10+2 stage for him to seek admission into the LL.B course. The two modes of legal education require either a 10+2 followed by five years of law or a 10+2 followed by three years of degree and then three years of law. The appellant satisfies the latter. 9. It may be noticed that the appellant had a good academic performance in his degree course and denying the admission to the appellant would now amount to deny him the benefit of education already carried out of 1½ years in the LL.B course. 10. The appellant had carried on the first and second semester course of study though his results were not declared, which have been produced before us in a sealed cover. In terms of the result, which are in grades, the appellant secured the minimum GPA of 4.5 and has cleared all the papers of first and second semester so as to qualify admission for third semester of LL.B course. However, the appellant could not pursue the course in the third semester on account of being denied the admission and it is only in pursuance to interim order of this Court that the appellant was granted admission in the fourth semester. 11. In the aforesaid context, it has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the University – respondents no. 1 and 2 that the regulations of the University require a regular course of study in the third and fourth semesters to able to be eligible for admission into fifth semester. Not only that, the appellant is required to clear 12 papers of the third and fourth semester combined together, out of which the appellant cannot afford to fail in more than two papers in order to qualify for the fifth semester. This is now impossible as undoubtedly, the appellant did not take the examination for the third semester. 12. Not only that, the appellant is required to clear 12 papers of the third and fourth semester combined together, out of which the appellant cannot afford to fail in more than two papers in order to qualify for the fifth semester. This is now impossible as undoubtedly, the appellant did not take the examination for the third semester. 12. The aforesaid position of the rules cannot be disputed even by the learned counsel for the appellant and thus, it is not possible for us to permit the appellant to have the benefit of the third and fourth semester without there being a regular course of study of the third semester and the examination being taken. The result of this is that the appellant would have to lose one academic year, but can be admitted to the third semester in the session commencing from July 2014. This would save the appellant one academic year, in which he pursued a regular course of study and also cleared the examination. 13. We, thus, dispose of the appeal with the following directions :- 1. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2013 is set aside. 2. The results of the appellant for the first and second semester be declared within a week. 3. We declare that the appellant had already passed, as per the result shown. 4. The appellant should be granted admission to the third semester in the session beginning from July 2014. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. Parties to bear their own costs. 16. The interim application bearing C.M. No. 5198-LPA of 2013 also stands disposed of.