Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
M. Satheesh – Appellant
Versus
Teachers Recruitment Board – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the the entire records connected with the impugned Clause 5 a (ii) and (iii) of the Notification No: 01/2025, dated 24.01.2025, issued by the respondent, in so as fixing 40 years as on 01.07.2025 as a maximum age limit to apply to the post of Assistant Professor (Pre Law) and also in so far as denial of benefit of extension of age to the candidates working in Teaching Posts, whether temporary or regular in colleges other than the law colleges alone are concerned and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process to the post of Assistant Professor (Pre Law).
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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1974) 4 SCC 3 and made specific reference to paragraph No.85, which is as follows:
The la
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.
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....
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....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered mid-process, and no age relaxation beyond prescribed limits is permissible without explicit provision.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment, including age limits, cannot be altered mid-process, and horizontal reservation for age relaxation is not permissible under existing rules.
The court upheld the age limit for Assistant Professor positions, emphasizing adherence to established recruitment guidelines and the prohibition against arbitrary changes mid-process.
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 Professor positions, emphasizing adherence to UGC guidelines as a binding standard for recruitment pro....
The court upheld the validity of the age limit and subject-specific qualifications for Assistant Professors, affirming adherence to UGC guidelines and judicial directives.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
