The court upheld the age limit for Assistant Professor positions as per established guidelines, emphasizing adherence to prior judicial directions and preventing arbitrary changes in recruitment criteria.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petitions has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of Notification/Advertisement No.1/2025, dated 24.01.2025, issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same, consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue fresh Notification in line with the UGC norms and regulations with Higher Education Department of Tamil Nadu rules and regulations.

2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Pre- Law) consequent to notification issued by the 2^nd respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board dated 24.01.2025. She claim relaxation of the age. Similar matters had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.5860 & 5165 of 2025 and by common order dated 27.02.2025, this Court had held as follows:

“3. The only issue raised in these Writ Petition is with respect to the criteria relating to the age within which the candidate could be considered eligible to apply for the said post. Under the notification dated 24.01.2025, the Teacher Recruitment Board stipulated the age as on 01.07.2025. It had been contended that no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Pre-Law), if he/she had completed the age of 40 years as on 01.07.2025. It had also been further provided that for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, for each year of service, whether regular or temporary, in any of the teaching course in a law college in the State, the age limit will be increased by one year subject to a maximum for five years.

4. The only interpretation that could be given to this particular stipulation is that as on 01.07.2025, the candidate who aspires to apply to the post of Assistant Professor (Law) and Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) should not have crossed the age of 40 years. But however, if the said candidate had served in a teaching profession either on regular basis or on part time basis which could also include a Guest Lecturer, then one year weightage is given for each year of such service rendered as Lecturer either full time or part time. But that would be subject to a maximum of 5 years. This would automatically increase the eligible age criteria to 45 years to those, who had put in 5 years of service as part time or full time as teacher in law in any Law College within the State.

5. This particular guideline relating to the age flows from G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022. That particular Government Order had been passed consequent to orders of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 19534 of 2018 batch and RA No. 195 of 2019 in W.A.No. 533 of 2018. In the aforementioned Writ Petition/ Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19.08.2021 had examined the conditions which are required to be stipulated for the post of Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) course in Government Law Colleges in the State of Tamilnadu. It had been stated that consequent to the directions issued by the Division Bench and in conformity with those guidelines, G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 had been passed by the Government. It is to be noted that this particular Government Order is not put to challenge by the writ petitioners herein.

6. In the said Government Order, while examining the rules relating to the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service as provided under Section 33 in Part-II of Tamil Nadu Service Manual 2016, special rules were enacted. The rules do not relate only to the qualification but to a series of issues relating to constitution of the categorise of Officers, appointment to the said categories which included Director of Legal Studies, Principals of Law Colleges, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Part time Lecturers and also College Librarian. The education and age criteria were prescribed in the Government Order. The appointing authority was also prescribed and it had been very specifically stated that the appointing auth