CLAT 2015 convenor RMLNLU Lucknow’s vice chancellor Prof Gurdip Singh said that the convenor was ready to approach the Allahabad high court for recall or review of its 26 February ex parte judgement, in which it had directed the convenor to allow applicants of all ages to take the CLAT.
RMLNLU, which had appealed to the Supreme Court against the Allahabad high court’s 26 February judgment, on 27 March sought leave of the court to withdraw the appeal so that it could still move the high court against its own order.
Singh told Legally India that the decision to withdraw its appeal was made after it came to the convenor’s notice that the Allahabad high court had dispatched the notice of hearing to the convenor only on 2 March. The 26 February ex parte hearing had therefore taken place without notice being served on the convenor.
Singh said that until a final order was obtained, it was “premature” and not proper on his part to predict whether successful older CLAT applicants would be allowed to join CLAT universities.
In their 27 March order which was made available by the Supreme Court on 30 March, justices V Gopala Gowda and C Nagappan stated:
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate Court either to recall or review the impugned Order. Permission sought for is granted. If such an application/petition is moved by the petitioner, the High Court shall consider the same and pass order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.
The Rajasthan high court had also made an interim order directing the convenor to temporarily allow candidates of all ages to appear for the exam, instead of sticking to the age limit of 20 years for general category candidates and 22 years for special category candidates.
Singh told Legally India that around 40,000 candidates had registered for the exam and paid its application fee as of 31 March, but there were around 22,000 others who had completed CLAT’s online application form without depositing the fee.
The application deadline was therefore extended to 14 April allow the candidates to apply who had not yet paid the fee.
Photo by Michael Surran
Comments
Why does the ABCDRMLNLU convenor care so much? I mean, really? The number of people who end up applying for CLAT and are over the age of 22 couldn't be that much (in comparison to the total applicants). And, factor in the number who actually make the cut, decide to actually join the school that they are given, complete the course (with all else that may be going on in their life), and actually decide to practice!! How large could that number be anyway? Further, if the imaginary 45 year old clerk/teacher/fire-fighter finally wants to pursue a life-long dream of becoming a lawyer (and still have a productive 20-30 years of practice life left), then so be it! What's this obsession with controlling people's lives and livelihoods based on some arbitrary number? Is 22 it? Why not 22.5? 23 may be? Who the hell decides what the "right" age is to become a lawyer from the hallowed halls of the NLU's?
Not sure why there isn't more outrage over this stupidity from the learned and honourable convenor!!
Son, you'll be old one day, and everything you've said today will come back and bite you where it hurts the most. I truly hope you see that day, just so you know never to discriminate again.
Please stay blissful and happy in your miserable existence until then.
20 because you get 2 -3 opportunities after u graduate from your 12th. Also, If they had logical reasoning, English and computer aptitude, this uncle here would fail!
According to your logic, young should get more resources because, well, they're young. How would you feel if you were to be forced into giving away opportunities based on your age?
You are constantly telling what a 30(or whatever) year old [i]should[/i] do rather than telling [i]why[/i] he shouldn't be allowed to pursue law normally. Just because the competition will take a hit? Not a well enough argument to stop a third person from doing an action based on choices/options of a first person.
I don't know what made you change your mind into making the upper limit 25 from 22. See, mathematical calculations rather than just random numbers that please your mind would help. What about exceptional cases? There are people who miss years of schooling due to serious medical conditions but continue normally later. Just chuck them out? Make a provision for them? Making a provision would again make a reservation-like situation.
PS: "I'm not saying the high court was wrong, ... I'd rather watch Jurassic Park" This part was good. ;)
You can't get NLS, go to local law school and do your law. You consider pursuing law in local colleges "abnormal"?? You can still pursue law "normally"! Seems like you want to do law for the money now cause I see no other reason!
You have already made a lot of bad choices in your life because you had too many options, now this ephiphany. Did Lord Macaulay come in your dreams and ask you to do law? Let the young make bad choices.
The wide age group is unfair because a 40 year old has more experience having seen 40 years of nonsense in the world, its an added advantage, if you don't consider it an advantage then you are a dim-wit!