became operative. They submit that, it was clearly resolved in the Resolution dated 14.01.2012 that the said relaxation was not to be treated as part of Rule 13(A) which could be granted by the Bar Council considering special circumstances only and which was to vary on case to case basis. They further submit that, by the said impugned Resolution dated 28.01.2013, the relaxation has not been extended in respect of the posts for the present election to all the intending candidates or members of the Associations as was done by 2007 Resolution. Instead, Bar Council has granted relaxation only to successful candidates of 2011 elections, leaving out the candidates who, though, had contested in the election in 2011 with the relaxation, but were unsuccessful. Hence, they submit that, on the one hand, Bar Council has favoured the candidates who contested the election and became successful in 2011 elections, by allowing them to contest again with relaxation, on the other hand, it has debarred the candidates who had contested the election with the relaxation earlier, from contesting election this time with relaxation only because they were unsuccessful earlier. They submit that there can be no conceivable rationale for this classification and discrimination meted out by the Bar Council in granting liberty to the members of the Association to contest the election. They
