JUDGMENT : Girish Chandra Gupta, J. All the five appeals are directed against a common judgment in the sense that the same judgment was delivered in five several writ petitions and being aggrieved thereby five several appeals have been preferred. 2. The question for consideration is whether eligibility as regards age provided by the University of Calcutta for admission to LLB course of five years is legal. 3. The eligibility criteria laid down by the University as regards the age is as follows:– “Age: GEN : Not more than 20 years on 1st June, 2015 (i.e.: D.O.B. on or after 1/6/1995) SC/ST : Not more than 22 years on 1st June 2015 (i.e. : D.O.B on or after 1/6/1993) PH : Not more than 25 years on 1st June, 2015 (i.e. : D.O.B on or after 1/6/1990).” 4. The learned trial Judge expressly or impliedly held that the age bar stipulated by the University is bad in law for the reason that the age restriction imposed by the Bar Council of India has since been revoked. 5. Regulation 4 framed by the University of Calcutta is not binding upon the writ petitioners which reads as follow:– “4. Age of Candidate: The maximum age for seeking admission to 5-Year B.A.L.L.B. Course is 20 (twenty) years as on 1st June of the respective year in case of General Category candidates and 22 (twenty two) years in case of applicants from S.C./S.T. Category.” 6. The learned trial court also took notice of the fact that identical restrictions are not there in some of the Universities of the State, including the Burdwan University. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the University has come up in appeal. 7. Dr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Regulation 4 was framed by the University pursuant to the power delegated by section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. 8. Section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, inter alia, is as follows:– “54. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes and the Ordinances, Regulations may be made to provide for all or any of the following matters:– (a) …………………….. (b) ……………………… (c) the conditions for admission to the different courses of study and examinations of students; (d) …………………. (e) …………………. (f) …………………. (g) ………………….” 9. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes and the Ordinances, Regulations may be made to provide for all or any of the following matters:– (a) …………………….. (b) ……………………… (c) the conditions for admission to the different courses of study and examinations of students; (d) …………………. (e) …………………. (f) …………………. (g) ………………….” 9. Dr Banerjee contended that the regulation framed by the University on the basis of power delegated to them amounts to a delegated legislation and therefore enjoys a presumption of Constitutionality in its favour. He in support of his submission relied on a judgment in the case of Supreme Court Fourth Class Employees’ Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187 . He, in particularly, drew our attention to the following sentence from paragraph 99 of the said judgment which reads as follows:– “There is indeed a higher degree of presumption of constitutionality in favour of subordinate legislation than in respect of administrative orders.” 10. The second submission advanced by Dr Banerjee is that there is no challenge thrown by the writ petitioners to the legality or validity of regulation 4. He contended that in the absence of any challenge the learned trial court should not have held that the regulation 4 was not binding upon the writ petitioners. 11. The third and last submission advanced by Dr Banerjee is that the writ petitioners in WP No.19490(W) of 2015 had presented an earlier writ petition or petitions claiming the same reliefs. He contended that during pendency of the earlier writ petition a subsequent writ petition could not have been presented. 12. The learned trial court not only entertained the second writ petition but also disposed of the same by granting the reliefs. Therefore, the writ petition allowed by the learned trial court was also hit by the principles of constructive res judicata. Dr Banerjee also relied on the judgment in Devilal Modi vs. Sales Tax Officer, reported in (1965) 1 SCR 686 . He added that the principles of Order 23, Rule 1 CPC shall also apply. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment in the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal MP & Ors., reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5 . 13. We have not been impressed by any of the submissions advanced by Dr Banerjee. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment in the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal MP & Ors., reported in (1987) 1 SCC 5 . 13. We have not been impressed by any of the submissions advanced by Dr Banerjee. There can be no dispute that the University has the statutory authority to make regulations stipulating the conditions for admission to the different courses of study. But that power, we are inclined to think, has to be exercised in order to advance the objects of the statute and not to defeat them. 14. The objects of the statute, viz. The University of Calcutta Act, 1979, would appear from the preamble which reads as follows:– “Whereas it is expedient to reconstitute the University of Calcutta to enable it to function more efficiently as a University encouraging and providing for instruction, teaching, training and research in various branches of learning and courses of study, promoting advancement and dissemination of knowledge and learning, and extending higher education, to meet the growing needs of society and to make the constitution of various authorities or bodies of the University more democratic.” 15. The object of the Act was to reconstitute the University of Calcutta to enable it to function more efficiently as a University encouraging the courses of study, promoting advancement and dissemination of knowledge and learning and extending higher education, to meet the growing needs of society. There can be no denial of the fact that in the recent years more and more students are attracted or have for some time been attracted towards the study of law. The same situation was not there one-and-a-half decades ago. 16. The point that we are trying to make is that the society needs more and more colleges of excellence to impart education in law. The regulation which the University was authorised to make should have been aimed at catering to the growing needs of the society rather than shutting up the doors. The University came up with the regulation 4 quoted above only in the year 2009. Before 2009 there was no such regulation. Whether it is coincidental or not but it is also a fact that this regulation was framed by the University after the Bar Council of India made an identical provision in the year 2008 in its rules. The University came up with the regulation 4 quoted above only in the year 2009. Before 2009 there was no such regulation. Whether it is coincidental or not but it is also a fact that this regulation was framed by the University after the Bar Council of India made an identical provision in the year 2008 in its rules. It is not in dispute that the provision made by the Bar Council of India has since been repealed. The University sticks to the regulation and Dr Banerjee strenuously contended that the regulation was made in exercise of power reserved to the University. No one can dispute that power was delegated to the University. But that power, as already indicated by us, was delegated for the purpose of giving effect to the objects of the statute and not for the purpose of defeating them. The aforesaid regulation has not been demonstrated to us by Dr Banerjee to have met the growing needs of the society. As a matter of fact, Dr Banerjee did not spend a word as to how does this regulation 4 help the University to achieve the objects of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. 17. We are of the opinion that the regulation 4, which the learned trial court expressly or impliedly held to be bad in law, is in fact a retrograde step and got the treatment which it deserved from the learned trial court. 18. Judgments cited by Dr Banerjee do not really help him. In paragraph 101 of the Judgment in the case of Supreme Court Fourth Class Employees’ Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1989) 4 SCC 187 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court opined as follows:– “Rules are liable to be declared invalid if they are manifestly unjust or oppressive or outrageous or directed to an unauthorised end or violative of the general principles of the law of the land or so vague that it cannot be predicated with certainty as to what is prohibited by them or so unreasonable that they cannot be attributed to the power delegated or otherwise disclose bad faith. In the words of Lord Russel of Killowen, C.J. in Kurse v. Johnson. In the words of Lord Russel of Killowen, C.J. in Kurse v. Johnson. “If for instance, they were found to be partial or unequal in their operation as between different classes; if they were manifestly unjust; if they disclosed bad faith; if they involved such oppressive or gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable men, the court might well say, ‘Parliament never intended to give authority to make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires’.”” 19. Dr Banerjee submitted that the principles of constructive res judicata shall apply and he also relied on the judgment in the case of Devilal Modi (supra). The reliance placed by Dr Banerjee on the judgment of the apex court in Devilal Modi is altogether misplaced for the simple reason that what had happened in that case was that a challenge to the assessment of the sales tax for the year 1957-58 before the High Court had failed and Special Leave Petition had also been dismissed. The writ petitioners in that case by a second writ petition tried to reopen the matter. We have not been supplied with a copy of the writ petition which the writ petitioners in WP No.19490(W) of 2015 had presented nor do we know what were the prayers made therein. Except for the submission that a writ petition praying for identical reliefs was presented by the same set of petitioners, no evidence in support thereof was filed before us. The learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners in those matters disputed that the earlier writ petitions were filed seeking self same relief on the basis of self same cause of action. Even assuming everything that Dr Banerjee submitted to be true those writ petitions were merely filed but they were admittedly pending. In case they are with respect to the self same cause of action, the consequence of the present judgment under challenge shall be that those writ petitions shall now be hit by the principles of res judicata. 20. The third point advanced by Dr Banerjee is equally without any merit. Order 23, Rule 1 CPC provides that a person cannot withdraw a suit without the leave of court; and in case he does so, he shall be precluded from filing a fresh suit on the self same cause action. 21. 20. The third point advanced by Dr Banerjee is equally without any merit. Order 23, Rule 1 CPC provides that a person cannot withdraw a suit without the leave of court; and in case he does so, he shall be precluded from filing a fresh suit on the self same cause action. 21. It is nobody’s case that the writ petitioners had earlier presented any writ petition which was withdrawn by them without the leave of court. 22. All the submissions advanced by Dr. Banerjee have been dealt with and rejected. In the result, the order passed by the learned trial court is upheld. 23. The appeal and the connected applications are dismissed. Parties shall however bear their own costs. 24. Dr Banerjee prayed for stay of operation of this judgment. We have considered the prayer and rejected it. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.