Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Vidjealatchoumy V – Appellant
Versus
Teachers' Recruitment Board, Represented by the Member Secretary – Respondent
| 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 th
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....
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
