Madras High Court
P.Veera Muthur vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos.5860 & 5165 of 2025
And
W.M.P.No. 6444 of 2025
P.Veera Muthur ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 5860 of 2025
R.Ghunasekaran ... Petitioner in W.P.No. 5165 of 2025
..Vs..
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government
Higher Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600009.
2. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government
Law Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Director of Legal Studies
Purasaivakkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
2
4. The Secretary
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai – 600006.
5. The Registrar,
The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University
Perungudi Campus, M.G.R. Salai
Near Taramani (MRTS) Railway Station
Chennai – 600 113. ... Respondents
PRAYER IN W.P.No. 5860 of 2025: Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the fourth respondent in Notification
No.01/2025 dated 24.01.2025 quash the same in so far as the age criteria is
concern to the post of Assistant Professor (Law) and Assistant Professor
(Pre-law) quash the same and consequently directing the second, third and
fourth respondent to relax / amend the Government Order vide
G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 thereby
amending/relaxing.
PRAYER IN W.P.No. 5165 of 2025: Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing
the second, third and fourth respondents to relax the Government Order vide
G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 thereby relaxing
the Notification vide Notification No.01/2025 dated 24.01.2025 in so far as
the age criteria is concerned to the posts of Assistant Professor (Law) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
3
Assistant Professor (Pre-Law).
For Petitioner in
W.P.No. 5860/2025 :: Dr. K.Kannan
For Petitioner in
W.P.No. 5165/2025 :: Ms. N.Lavanya
for E.C.Ramesh
For RR 1 to 3 in
both W.Ps. :: Mr. D.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
For 4th Respondent in
both W.Ps. :: Mr. K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel
For 5th Respondent in
both W.Ps. :: Mr. M.Nallathambi
COMMON ORDER
Originally the Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a Mandamus
and seeking direction against the respondents to relax the Government order
in G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 and
consequently also relax the age criteria in the Notification No.01/2025 dated
24.01.2025 in so far as the posts of Assistant Professor (Law) and Assistant
Professor (Pre-Law).
2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No. 5165 of 2025 R.Ghunasekaran, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
aged about 45 years as seen from the affidavit filed by him. The writ
petitioner in W.P.No. 5860 of 2025 P.Veera Muthu is aged 50 years as seen
from the affidavit filed by him. They had both intended to apply for the
post of Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) consequent to the notification issued
by the Teacher Recruitment Board dated 24.01.2025. They are both
otherwise eligible to be considered for the appointment so far as their
educational qualification is concerned.
3. The only issue raised in these Writ Petition is with respect to the
criteria relating to the age within which the candidate could be considered
eligible to apply for the said post. Under the notification dated 24.01.2025,
the Teacher Recruitment Board stipulated the age as on 01.07.2025. It had
been contended that no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct
recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Pre-
Law), if he / she had completed the age of 40 years as on 01.07.2025. It had
also been further provided that for the appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor, for each year of service, whether regular or temporary, in any of
the teaching course in a law college in the State, the age limit will be
increased by one year subject to a maximum for five years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
4. The only interpretation that could be given to this particular
stipulation is that as on 01.07.2025, the candidate who aspires to apply to
the post of Assistant Professor (Law) and Assistant Professor (Pre-Law)
should not have crossed the age of 40 years. But however, if the said
candidate had served in a teaching profession either on regular basis or on
part time basis which could also include a Guest Lecturer, then one year
weightage is given for each year of such service rendered as Lecturer either
full time or part time. But that would be subject to a maximum of 5 years.
This would automatically increase the eligible age criteria to 45 years to
those, who had put in 5 years of service as part time or full time as teacher
in law in any Law College within the State.
5. This particular guideline relating to the age flows from
G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022. That particular
Government Order had been passed consequent to orders of a Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 19534 of 2018 batch and RA No. 195 of
2019 in W.A.No. 533 of 2018. In the aforementioned Writ Petition/ Writ
Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19.08.2021 had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
examined the conditions which are required to be stipulated for the post of
Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) course in Government Law Colleges in the
State of Tamilnadu. It had been stated that consequent to the directions
issued by the Division Bench and in conformity with those guidelines,
G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 had been passed
by the Government. It is to be noted that this particular Government Order
is not put to challenge by the writ petitioners herein.
6. In the said Government Order, while examining the rules relating
to the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service as provided under Section 33
in Part -II of Tamil Nadu Service Manual 2016, special rules were enacted.
The rules do not relate only to the qualification but to a series of issues
relating to constitution of the categorise of Officers, appointment to the said
categories which included Director of Legal Studies, Principals of Law
Colleges, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Part time
Lecturers and also College Librarian. The education and age criteria were
prescribed in the Government Order. The appointing authority was also
prescribed and it had been very specifically stated that the appointing
authority to the post of Director of Legal studies, Principal, Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
Professor, Associate Professor, Part time Professor and a College Librarian
shall be the Government. Thereafter, with respect to qualification and with
specific reference to age, it had been provided in the Government Order
that for the post of Assistant Professor including Assistant Professor (Pre-
law), the upper age limit would be 40 years. It had also been provided
further that if the candidate for the post of Assistant Professor and Assistant
Professor had put in service as teacher in any Law college in this State as a
regular teacher or as a temporary teacher, for each year of such service, one
additional year could be granted. But however, it had been further stated
that this increase in the number of years over and above 40 would be only
for a further 5 years. This would automatically mean that if a person had
been in the teaching profession for 5 years continuously either in temporary
basis or in part time basis or whole time basis, then he would gain 5 years
over and above the prescribed age limit of 40, but the outer age limit can
never exceed 45 yeas.
7. The Government Order further examined the method of
recruitment for the post of Director of Legal studies for the post of Principal
and also for the posts of Assistant Professor and for Assistant Professor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
For the post of Assistant Professor, it had been stated that the post would
only be filled through Direct Recruitment and the educational qualification
required have been very specifically given in the Government Order.
8. To reiterate, this Government Order had been passed only
consequent to directions issued by this Court in a W.P.No. 19534 of 2018
batch and R.A.No. 195 of 2019 in W.A.No. 533 of 2018 by order dated
19.08.2021. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that quite
apart from the orders of the Division Bench referred supra, a learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 6856 of 2018 [P.Vasantha Kumar Vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government,
Chennai and others] by an order dated 07.11.2024 had further examined the
issue of filling up of posts in Government Law Colleges of Assistant
Professor and Assistant Professor (Pre-law). It had been observed that a
substantial number of posts were vacant and accordingly, the learned Single
Judge had thought it would be expedient to constitute an Expert Committee
to monitor the recruitment process for the posts of Assistant Professor,
Assistant Professor (Pre-law) and Associate Professor in Government Law
Colleges. Accordingly, an Expert Committee had also been formed to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
headed by a Former Judge as the Chairman of the Expert Committee and
also have as members, a Senior Counsel of this Court and a retired IAS
Officer. The Committee had been constituted consequent to the directions
of the learned Single Judge.
9. Very specific arguments had been advanced on behalf of the
respondents that the Committee had also examined the conditions as
prescribed in the notification issued on 24.02.2025 and the Committee had
not thought it fit to bring in any amendment to any of the stipulations
prescribed in the notification even with respect to the age criteria.
10. It is thus seen that consciously the Teacher Recruitment Board
had followed the guidelines as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS)
Department, dated 11.04.2022 which was issued only on directions of this
Court in the order as stated above. It prescribed the eligibility criteria with
respect to the age of Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor (Pre-law)
as 40 years with a possibility of 5 added years depending on the experience
obtained in teaching either on part time or on full time in a Law College for
a maximum of five years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
11. The relief sought in these Writ Petitions is to revisit this
particular condition as prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS)
Department, dated 11.04.2022. This Court is bound by the directions issued
by the Division Bench in W.P.Nos. 19534 of 2018 and etc., batch and
R.A.No. 195 of 2019 in W.A.No. 533 of 2018.
12. When directions had been issued in the aforementioned Writ
Petitions/ Writ Appeal by the Division Bench, it would be extremely
inappropriate on the part of this Court to give a go by to those directions
and issue fresh guidelines for the consideration of the Government. That
would defeat the purpose of the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench.
13. The learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 6856 of 2018 had also
thought it fit to only form an Expert Committee to examine the issues
relating to the recruitment to the posts of Associate Professor, Assistant
Professor and Assistant Professor (Pre-Law). The learned Single Judge, had
not given any fresh directions but had constituted a Committee by to
examine the recruitment process and monitor the recruitment process. No
specific guidelines or stipulations have been passed in direct contradiction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
to the order of the Division Bench.
14. If this Court were to relax the age criteria, it would commit itself
to arbitrariness particularly as an issue would arise as to how many years
should the age be relaxed. In W.P.No. 5165 of 2025, the petitioner had
categorised himself as being aged 45 years and the Writ Petitioner in
W.P.No. 5860 of 2025 had categorised himself as aged 50 years on the date
of filing of the writ petition. There could be others in waiting, who would be
55 years or who would be 56 years or who would be 60 years and upwards.
Thus, it would only be prudent that no relaxation beyond what had been
prescribed in the rules and regulations is granted by this Court. The two
petitioners alone cannot be cherrypicked and their age relaxed.
15. It is also to be noted that a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 [ Tej Prakash
Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others] had examined
the issue of “changing of the rules of the game”. It had been very
specifically stated that once a notification had been issued, there could be
no change in any of the prescriptions as given in the notification for the
recruitment. The directions issued by the Constitution Bench are given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
below:-
“65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the
following terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement calling for applications
and ends with filling up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the
select list, notified at the commencement of the
recruitment process, cannot be changed midway
through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules
so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to
the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is
permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement,
the change would have to meet the requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-
arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree [K.
Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008)
1 SCC (L&S) 841] lays down good law and is not in
conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha
[State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha,
(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] . Subash
Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC
(L&S) 488] deals with the right to be appointed from
the select list whereas K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v.
State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
841] deals with the right to be placed in the select list.
The two cases therefore deal with altogether different
issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant
Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing
the recruitment process to its logical end provided the
procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus
to the object sought to be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are
binding on the recruiting body both in terms of
procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are
non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may
fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no
indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its
instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to
fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the
State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny
appointment to a person within the zone of
consideration in the select list. ”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
16. It had been very specifically stated that a candidate should come
within the zone of selection list and only when he conforms to the eligible
criteria with respect to all aspects including education criteria, age criteria
and all other factors should he/she be considered for selection.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 5165 of 2025
pointed out the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and very
specifically pointed out the stand of the respondents that with respect to the
age limit prescribed for recruitment to the post in Dr.Ambedkar Law
University would not apply to the teaching posts in Government Law
College and stated that there was a contradiction in such stand.
18. In this connection, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in
W.P.No. 5860 of 2025 drew notice to the notification issued for recruitment
for the very same post to the Dr.Ambedkar Law University in the year 2022,
wherein the age limit had been prescribed as 57 years. It had therefore been
contended that the age limit prescribed by the Teacher Recruitment Board
must be in conformity with the age limit as prescribed by the Dr.Ambedkar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
Law University for recruitment to the similar posts and there cannot be any
different standard.
19. But however in the counter affidavit, it had been very specifically
stated by the respondents that with respect to the Government Law
Colleges, the appointing authority is the Government and not Dr.Ambedkar
Law University. It had been contended that Dr.Ambedkar Law University
is governed by the guidelines prescribed by the Syndicate of the University.
Incidentally, it must also be pointed out that G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS)
Department, dated 11.04.2022 had examined the directions given by the
Division Bench and it had been stated that directions had also been issued
with respect to the appointing authority and it had been very specifically
stated that the appointing authority for the posts of Assistant Professor (Pre
Law) would only be the Government and not Dr.Ambedkar Law University.
That has been very clearly stated in the Government Order itself.
20. I am afraid the issue of relaxation of age cannot be entertained by
this Court and a Mandamus cannot be issued contrary to the notification
issued by the Teacher Recruitment Board. To repeat this would only lead to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
arbitrariness and every individual above the age of 40 would now seek
relaxation and to be considered for the post. As a matter of fact there could
also be demand to increase the 5 years which is granted for those who have
experience.
21. In view of these reasons, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands
closed.
27.02.2025
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
To
1. Principal Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Higher Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600009.
2. Principal Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Law Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
3. The Director of Legal Studies
Purasaivakkam High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai.
4. The Secretary
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai – 600006.
5. The Registrar,
The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University
Perungudi Campus, M.G.R. Salai
Near Taramani (MRTS) Railway Station
Chennai – 600 113.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
W.P.W.P.Nos.5860 & 5165 of 2025
And
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 03:36:30 pm )
