ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Ranchi University. 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: (i) to quash Annexures-1, 1/A and 1/B of the writ petition dated 29.09 2007 by which the candidature of the three petitioners for contesting Students Union Election of the Ranchi University had been rejected by the Returning Officer of the Students Union Election, Chotanagpur Law College, Ranchi on the ground that they have crossed the maximum age limits for contesting the said Election; (ii) to quash the letter dated 30th September, 2007 (Annexure-3) by which the application of the petitioners for reviewing the said decision rejecting their candidature has been rejected by the Dean, Students Welfare, Ranchi University (Respondent No. 3) (iii) to declare the amendments made by the Ranchi University in the statutes of the University fixing 24 years as the maximum age for the students of LL.B. course to contest the election. 3. As it appears from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors. reported in (2006) 8 SCC 304 which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner, that the Apex Court, by accepting the recommendations of a Committee constituted by it and headed by Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh, gave several directions incorporated in the Judgment for being implemented and followed in all Colleges/University Elections. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners referred Clause 6.5 i.e. Eligibility criteria for candidates as mentioned in the aforementioned Judgment of the Supreme Court and submitted that as per Clause 6.5.1, the age limits for the students contesting election under the category of Undergraduate students was fixed between 17 to 22 years. However, this age limit was liable to be relaxed in the case of students of professional colleges where courses range between 4 to 5 years. For the Post Graduate students, the age limit to contest the election was fixed between 24-25 years under Clause 6.5.2. 5. However, this age limit was liable to be relaxed in the case of students of professional colleges where courses range between 4 to 5 years. For the Post Graduate students, the age limit to contest the election was fixed between 24-25 years under Clause 6.5.2. 5. It is submitted that the writ petitioners comes under the category of Post Graduate Students as envisaged under Clause 6.5 2 because, they were pursuing their studies in LL.B. course after the graduation and therefore, for the students of LL.B. course, as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the age was fixed in between 24 - 25 years. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the University Authorities have wrongly and illegally rejected their candidature treating them to be the students of professional course. It is also submitted that the amendment made in the statute of the University was contrary and ultra vires to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors. (Supra). It is further submitted that Vinoba Bhawe University. Hazaribagh, in its Notification regarding election of the Students Union. 2007 has fixed the age in between 24 - 25 years for the students of LL.B. whereas, the Ranchi University has fixed it to be 22 - 24 years. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the University, submitted that according to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors. (Supra), it is clearly mentioned in Clause 6.5.1 that in the case of students of professional colleges, the age of those students for contesting election was liable to be relaxed appropriately and accordingly, for the students of LL.B. course, the age has been relaxed as per the directions of the Supreme Court and has been fixed in between 22 - 24 years. He submitted that LL.B. course is not a Post Graduate course nor the petitioners can be said to be the Post Graduate students and therefore, the maximum age limit fixed for the Post Graduate students as mentioned in Clause 6.5.2 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court fixing the age limit in between 24 - 25 years, cannot be allowed to the petitioners because they are neither Post Graduate Students nor they are prosecuting any Post Graduate courses. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the LL.B. course is a professional course and in support of his submissions, he referred the Bar Council of India Rules which clearly speaks that LL.B. Course is a professional course and therefore, the Colleges imparting the education in LL.B. would certainly come under the categories of the professional Colleges. 9. There is no dispute of this fact that all the three writ petitioners are more than 24 years of age. 10. After going through the Bar Council of India Rules and the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit and also the amendments made by the University in its statute, we have no doubt in our mind that the LL B. course, which the petitioners are pursuing, is a professional course and the College i.e. the Chotanagpur Law College, Ranchi of which the petitioners are the students and which is imparting LL.B. Course, is a Professional College and therefore, as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court, particularly as mentioned in Clause 65 1, the University has rightly relaxed the age limits of the Law Students and have fixed the age in between 22-24 years for the students intending to contest the election. The petitioners are all above the age of 24 years therefore, the candidature have rightly been rejected by the concerned authority. 11. The instance cited by the petitioners about the Vinoba Bhawe University cannot be taken to be a ground to allow these petitioners to contest election by relaxing their age limits to 25 years. This would certainly be against the letter and spirit of the orders of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. 12. In view of the discussions and findings above, we are not in a position to hold that the University has committed any wrong in fixing the age limits in between 22-24 years for the students of LL.B for contesting the election for Students Union in the Ranchi University Consequently, we hold that the amendments made by the Ranchi University in the statutes of the University in that regard is perfect and in consonance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals, Colleges, Kerala and Ors. (Supra). (Supra). Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ application Consequently, it is dismissed.