The court upheld the validity of the age limit and subject-specific qualifications for Assistant Professors, affirming adherence to UGC guidelines and judicial directives.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 issued by the second respondent and strike down Rule 4(a), Item No.4 in Column Post (1) Assistant Professor with respect to the age which had been given as 40 years in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service and quash the impugned recruitment notification No. 1 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025 to that extent. The petitioner seeks that the first respondent must issue a fresh notification adhering to the UGC Regulation 2018.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been contended that the writ petitioner had passed her two years L.L.M Degree from Mahatma Gandhi University scoring 72% with specialization in Commercial Laws. She also passed NET examination in January 2018 conducted by the University of Grants Commission and claims that she is qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law. It was also stated that she was also a Guest Faculty in School of Law, Pondicherry University. She is also doing her Ph.D., in Corporate Governance and Climate Change Law in India in Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala.

3. Pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent on 24.01.2024 calling for applications for among other posts, Assistant Professor (Law) in Government Law Colleges – 2025, she had intended to apply for the same. But however, she found to her dismay that the upper age limit stipulated was 40 years. Further, the vacancies were notified subjectwise, and it was expected that the PG Law Degree in law should also be related to such subjects. Questioning the notification in so far as these two conditions are concerned, namely, the outer age limit of 40 years and the further stipulation of possessing PG in Law in specified subjects, the petitioner had sought interference with the said notification dated 24.01.2025 in Notification No.1/2025. But however, further noting that the age limit had been prescribed consequent to an earlier Governance Order which had been passed in G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022, the petitioner had also sought to call for the records relating to the said Government Order and to quash the same only to the extent of prescribing the age limit for those who apply for the post of Assistant Professor of Law.

4. In the aforementioned Government Order, again it had been mentioned that the outer age limit would be 40 years and it had been further stipulated that those who have experience in teaching can avail the benefit of one additional year for every year which they discharged service as teachers subject to a maximum of 5 years.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that both these stipulations, namely, the outer age limit for 40 years and the stipulation that the Masters Degree in Law should only be with respect to a specified subject were not part of the UGC guidelines 2018. The learned counsel pointed out that in the UGC guidelines 2018 with respect to the post of Assistant Professor, the only requirement stipulated so far as the educational qualification is concerned, was a Masters Degree with 55% marks in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. It is thus contended that any candidate, who has a Masters Degree in Law, irrespective of the particular subject in which such Masters Degree in Law had been obtained should be eligible to participate in the recruitment process as contemplated in Notification No.1/2025 dated 24.01.2025. In the notification, it had been provided that for the post of Assistant Professor, those candidates, who had possessed Master's Degree in Property Law, Crime and Torts Criminal Law, Labour Law, Environment Law, Administrative Law and Taxation Law alone would be eligible and would be required by the respondents as the posts