IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
Vidjealatchoumy V. – Appellant
Versus
Teachers' Recruitment Board, Represented by the Member Secretary – Respondent
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 Gove
Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others
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.
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 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.
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.