Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) All the above appeals with connected applications are taken up together for order since those were heard analogously on consent at the instance of the learned Counsels representing the parties thereof.
(2.) The cause of action as asserted by the appellants, is attributable to the eligibility clauses published in the advertisement notice by the respondent University of Calcutta for admission to 1st semester of 5th year B.A. LL.B course for the academic session 2017-2018. The impugned eligibility clause reads:- "Eligibility: 1) Passed 10+2 or its equivalent from the Board recognized by the University of Calcutta in the year 2015-2017(for General); 2013-2017 (for SC/ST) and 2010-2017(for PWD) only."
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants relying upon judgment of Single Bench of this Court delivered on 15.07.2015 in W.P. 15582(W) of 2015, (Aishwarya Pratihar Vs. University of Calcutta), and Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered analogously on December 21, 2015 dismissing as many as five appeals, argued that the age restriction in the matter of admission for the five years B.A. LL.B students having been scraped following the guidelines of the Bar Council of India, the respondent University imposed the above eligibility restriction indirectly in a round about way which according to them was detrimental to the interest of the students and natural justice.;