Judgment :- Heard both sides. The petitioner applied for getting into the B.L. Law Degree course conducted by the second respondent University. The petitioner at the time of filing of the application was 30 years old. He studied B.Sc. (Mathematics) and got the degree from the Madurai Kamarajar University. He also belongs to backward class. 2. Thepetitioner purchased an application No.302308 for getting into the course for the year 20092010. The petitioners application was not entertained by the University. By the impugned communication, which was put into the Website of the University, it was stated that the petitioner was over-aged and therefore, he was not eligible for getting into the said course. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to consider his application without reference to his age. .3. The ground raised by the petitioner was the petitioner was only 30 years and 10 days. Therefore, on that ground, he cannot be non-suited. It was also stated that since he has decided to have career in Law and was very much interested in doing the course, his application should be considered without reference to the upper age criteria. In any event, he was only 10 days older than the age prescribed. 4. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the second respondent University, a counter affidavit, dated 110. 2009 has been filed. It was stated that as per the prospectus given by the University for three years B.L. Degree course for the year 2009-2010, a candidate should not have completed 30 years of age as on 6. 2009 and in respect of SC and ST community, the maximum age can be 35 years. It was stated that the Bar Council of India had framed rules under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act. In Part 4 of the Rule in paragraph 28-B, it was prescribed that the maximum age seeking for admission into the stream of three years Bachelor Degree course in Law is limited to 30 years with condition that concession can be given for five years if an applicant belongs to SC or ST community or any other backward community. Since the petitioner has crossed the maximum age, he cannot be considered for admission. But in the prospectus, concession has been given only to SC/ST community alone. 5. Since the petitioner has crossed the maximum age, he cannot be considered for admission. But in the prospectus, concession has been given only to SC/ST community alone. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of this court that in an identical case in W.P.No.14877 of 2009 in M. Santhosh Antony Vareed Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, dated 9. 2009, this Court had rejected a similar contention. Therefore, the same decision will apply to the facts of the present case also. 6. If the said decision had rendered answer to the question of maximum age, not being able to be relaxed in the light of the Bar Council rules, there would have been no difficulty for this court to follow the said decision in toto and to dismiss the writ petition on the legal issue raised in this writ petition. However, the learned Judge of this court in that case apart from upholding the right of authorities in prescribing the maximum age for entry into the Law degree course, had chosen to make several recommendations which he thought fit vide his judgment in paragraph 20. Some recommendations may have sweeping impact. 7. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Meerut Development Authority v. Assn. of Management Studies reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 had stated that personal views of Judges cannot be thrust on the parties. It must also be noted that reform of legal education or for that matter any other education should be left to the decision by the academicians and experts concerned. 8. A division bench of this Court in Dr. G. Krishnamurthy Vs. Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai and others reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1133 had even directed the University to inspect all the affiliated colleges and submit appropriate report to this Court regarding the ills of the legal education in Government law colleges, so that appropriate directions can be given to the Government. .9. The learned Judge has made several recommendations. Some of which are already part of the statutory conditions imposed by the Bar council of India. .9. The learned Judge has made several recommendations. Some of which are already part of the statutory conditions imposed by the Bar council of India. The condition like the colleges must be full time and must have 4 to 5 hours per day was already insisted by the Bar Council of India vide its rules framed under Part 4 Section B Paragraph 2.2, wherein it is stated that the working time of the college or the University Department should be 30 hours working per week including conduct of correspondence programme, tutorials, home assignment, library, clinical work and the actual time for class room lecturers should be not less than 20 hours per week. 10. The observations of the learned Judge that there must be compulsory attendance is also covered by the Rule, wherein students are required to put in minimum attendance of 60% in each subject and tutorials, moot court and practical and training course. With reference to having minimum of 60% marks for getting admission to the course, it must be noted that the State Government has scrapped entrance test for entering into Law colleges. The admissions are made based on academic marks obtained in Plus 2 examination or in degree course. It is only on the basis of merit, admissions are now made. In no case, for 5 years Law course, students with less than 60% marks can gain entry especially when competition is severe. As rules of reservation are applied to secure social justice, there may be stray cases where marks may be lower in respect of filling up of those seats based on communal roster. It is essential that the Constitutional guarantee given to the citizens of this country cannot be interfered through such suggestions. 11. Part IV of the Bar Council Rules regarding Law Colleges had extensively put conditions including appointment of Professors in paragraph 12 and establishment of library as condition No.5 in Section C in that part has been mandatorily prescribed. 12. With regard to the suggestion relating to scrapping of three years Law Course, it must be stated that such a debate had already undergone throughout the Country. The Law Ministers working group on legal education held in September, 1995 (see Indian Bar Review, Volume 22(4), 1995) had recommended the system of 5 year Law Course. Subsequently, the matter was debated by the Bar Council of India. The Law Ministers working group on legal education held in September, 1995 (see Indian Bar Review, Volume 22(4), 1995) had recommended the system of 5 year Law Course. Subsequently, the matter was debated by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India has disagreed with the recommendation of the group of Law Ministers. It was decided to continue both systems i.e. 5 year and 3 year course in the legal education. 13. The suggestion that antecedents of students should be verified before admitting them into the Law course had not elaborated. Even now students are required to produce conduct certificates from the respective schools or colleges in which they have undergone either for Plus 2 or degree course. Since students who have completed Plus 2 are joining 5 years Law course, there cannot be any criminal antecedents about them since at the time of their school education, they are minors. If such minors have committed any action, that will be taken care by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2002, which was enacted to reform such children who are said to be in conflict with Law. In the guise of verifying the antecedents, one should not use the police for doing so. The present system of producing conduct certificates from the respective educational institutions is sufficient. 14. This Court thought it fit to make these observations because courts are not competent to give suggestions on academic matters. But such matters should be left to the decision making process of academicians and educational experts. 15. To conclude this case, it will be worthwhile to quote from Meerut Development Authoritys case (cited supra). "Public interest floats in a vast, deep ocean of ideas, and “imagined experiences”. It would seem to us wise for the courts not to venture into this unchartered minefield. We are not exercising our will. We cannot impose our own values on society. Any such effort would mean to make value judgments." "The impugned judgment illustrates “the danger of judges wrongly though unconsciously substituting their own views for the views of the decision-maker who alone is charged and authorised by law to exercise discretion”. With respect, we find that the High Court virtually converted the judicial review proceedings into an inquisitorial one." 16. Any such effort would mean to make value judgments." "The impugned judgment illustrates “the danger of judges wrongly though unconsciously substituting their own views for the views of the decision-maker who alone is charged and authorised by law to exercise discretion”. With respect, we find that the High Court virtually converted the judicial review proceedings into an inquisitorial one." 16. It may not be out of place to refer that recently a Division Bench of the Supreme Court on finding that earlier opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in the matter of conduct of student elections in educational institutions given by Arijit Pasayat, J. was in the nature of private opinion and therefore, whether the court can express and write in judgment such opinion has been referred to a decision by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. 17. With these observations, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.