SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5174

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.Velmurugan
For the Respondent:Mr. K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel for TRB, Mr. C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate

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 processes.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service - G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 - Upper age limit of 40 years for Assistant Professor post challenged - UGC Guidelines 2018 - Only Master’s Degree with 55% marks required, no age limit stated - Petitioner claims discrimination due to the specified age and subject educational qualifications. (Paras 1, 2, 3)

(B) Legal Principles - UGC guidelines are binding on State Government; any additional restrictions not found in guidelines can be seen as arbitrary and unconstitutional. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

(C) Court's findings - The Government Order was enacted under judicial direction from a Division Bench, retaining the age limit and subject specificity for quality education standards. (Paras 18, 24, 32)

(D)

Findings of Court:
The age stipulation of 40 years with certain relaxations is sound as introduced under judicial instructions aimed at maintaining educational quality. (Paras 13, 29) (E)

Issues: Whether the age limitation and specified subjects in Master's Degree contravene UGC stipulations and affect the petitioner's recruitment eligibility. (Paras 2, 20) (F)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the Government's authority to set educational qualifications along with age limits, as they derive from judicial mandates related to educational standards - Therefore, not arbitrary. (Paras 9, 30, 34) (G)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top