IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.Karthikeyan, J.
Vidjealatchoumy V - Petitioner
Versus
Teachers' Recruitment Board, Represented by the Member Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No. 7369 of 2025 And W.M.P.Nos. 8226, 8251, 8253 of 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for challenging age limit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against ugc and age specifications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. guidelines established by ugc and relevant cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. contradictions between notifications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. origin and necessity of g.o.ms.no.233 explained. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 6. government authority and judicial directions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. distinguishing factors for the case. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. clarification on qualifications required. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 34) |
ORDER :
C.V.Karthikeyan, J.
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
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....
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 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 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, 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 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 cannot be altered mid-process, and no age relaxation beyond prescribed limits is permissible without explicit provision.
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
The fixation of an upper age limit for Assistant Professor positions is a policy decision of the State, and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors....
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.