Madras High Court
C. Loganathan vs The State Represented By The on 16 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.5647 of 2025
C. Loganathan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Represented by The,
Chief Secretary, Secretariat
St. George Fort,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
(Legal Affairs), Law Department,
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2025
Secretariate,
Chennai 600 009.
3. The Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
College Road,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the
impugned amended Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service Rule vide
G.O.Ms.No.233 Law (LS), dated 11.04.2022 issued by the second
respondent as ultra vires and unconstitutional and to cancel the
subsequent Notification No. 1/2025, dated 24.01.2025 published by the
second respondent and consequently directing the 2nd and 3rd
respondents to issue fresh Legal Educational Services Rules and
Notification by adhering the provisions of Constitution of India and
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
W.P(MD)No.7494 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Sankar.S,
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ashok (R1 & R2)
Additional Government Pleader
: Mr.T.Amjad Khan (R3)
Standing Counsel
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The issues raised in the present writ petition are no res integra.
2.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in
W.P(MD)No.11390 of 2025, dated 22.04.2025. The relevant paragraph
of the order reads as under:
"2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today,
the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent
submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is
squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of
the Principal Seat in W.A.No.1004 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025
(M.Satheesh Vs. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) and
others) and accordingly, prayed for a similar order to be
passed in this Writ Petition also.
3.In W.A.No.1004 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
(M.Satheesh Vs. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) and
others), the Division Bench of the Principal Seat held as
follows:
“5.Clause 5 of the notification dated
24.01.2025 issued by the Teachers Recruitment
Board deals with the age limit as on 01.07.2025.
While the maximum age limit for the post of
Assistant Professor is 40 years as per Clause (ii),
Clause (iii) provides for relaxation of age limit
and it reads as follows:-
(iii) Further, for appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor for each year of
service, whether regular or temporary, if need be,
in any of the teaching posts in a Law College in
the State by a person, the age limit will be
increased by one year subject to a maximum of
five years.
6. As per Clause (iii) only persons who had
worked in a teaching post in a Law College in the
State would be entitled to the benefit of clause
(iii). The appellant has not served in a Law
College. He has served in a Government Arts
College. Therefore, he would not be entitled to the
benefit of relaxation provided under clause (iii).
7. No doubt, the learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that the subject being a
non-law subject, the prescription that the person
should have taught in Law College is superfluous
and any person who has taught in Government
Arts College or in other Colleges would also be
entitled to age relaxation.
8. We are unable to agree. Fixation of
qualifications, age limit as well as the norms for
relaxation are within the exclusive domain of the
appointing Authority and the Recruiting Agency.
This Court cannot interfere in the process,
particularly, after the notification had been issued
and the appellant's application had been rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
The fundamental principle of Law that there
cannot be a change in the Rule after the game had
begun would straight away apply to the case on hand.
9. We had an occasion to consider a similar matter,
wherein, the fixation of age limit itself was questioned. We
had by our order dated 14.03.2025 dismissed the appeal
after referring to the jurisdiction or the power of the State
in matters relating to education as found in Entry 25 of
List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.
10. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the
order of the writ Court. Therefore, the Writ Appeal fails
and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4.Following the aforesaid Judgment, this Writ Petition is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. "
3.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
16.06.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
LR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
To
1. The State Represented by The,
Chief Secretary, Secretariat
St. George Fort,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Secretary to Government,
(Legal Affairs), Law Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
LR
16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:36:44 pm )
