IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
K. Muthulakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
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 2nd respondent and quash the same, consequently, direct the 2nd 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 2nd 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
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 crit....
The court upheld the age limit of 40 years for Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) positions, allowing a maximum extension of 5 years for teaching experience, emphasizing adherence to established guideline....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment, including age limits, cannot be altered mid-process, and horizontal reservation for age relaxation is not permissible under existing rules.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered mid-process, and no age relaxation beyond prescribed limits is permissible without explicit provision.
The court upheld the age limit for Assistant Professor positions, emphasizing adherence to established recruitment guidelines and the prohibition against arbitrary changes mid-process.
The court upheld the age limit of 40 years for Assistant Professor positions, emphasizing adherence to established guidelines to prevent arbitrariness and ensure equality in public employment.
A recruitment notification's eligibility criteria must align with established regulations, and any restrictions not prescribed by the UGC guidelines are impermissible.
The court upheld the validity of the age limit and subject-specific qualifications for Assistant Professors, affirming adherence to UGC guidelines and judicial directives.
The court upheld the validity of the age limit and subject-specific qualifications for Assistant Professor positions, emphasizing adherence to UGC guidelines as a binding standard for recruitment pro....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment must be strictly adhered to, and any changes post-selection cannot retroactively affect concluded processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.