Madras High Court
R.Thamil Mani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos.9298, 9302, 9305 & 9308 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.10439, 10445, 10448 & 10450 of 2025
1.R.Thamil Mani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9298 of 2025
2.D.Rajeshkannan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9302 of 2025
3.S.Muruganandhan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9305 of 2025
4.M.Annamalai .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9308 of 2025
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Law Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
4th Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. MGR Centenary Building,
DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents in all WPs.
Prayer in W.P.No.9298 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to accept the application of the petitioner for the post of
Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) in Economic Subject in the Notification
No.01/25 dated 24.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
2
direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear exams conducted by
the 2nd respondent for the Notification No.01/2025 dated 24.01.2025.
Common Prayer in W.P.Nos.9302, 9305 & 9308 of 2025: Writ Petitions
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ
of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the application of the
petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) in Political Science
Subject in the Notification No.01/25 dated 24.01.2025 issued by the 2 nd
respondent and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner
to appear exams conducted by the 2nd respondent for the Notification
No.01/2025 dated 24.01.2025.
For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Ram Prabhu, (in all WPs.)
For R1 .. Mr.C.Jaya Prakash, Govt. Advocate
For R2 .. Mr.K.Sathish, Standing Counsel
(in all WPs.)
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petitions have been filed in the nature of a Mandamus
seeking a direction against the respondents to accept the application of the
petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor (Pre-Law) in the Notification
No.01 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025 and to allow the petitioners to appear for
the examination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
2.The petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Pre-
Law) consequent to notification issued by the 2nd respondent / Teachers
Recruitment Board dated 24.01.2025. They claim relaxation of the age.
Similar matters had come up for consideration before this Court in
W.P.Nos.5860 & 5165 of 2025 and by common order dated 27.02.2025, this
Court had held as follows:
“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.
4. The only interpretation that could be given to this
particular stipulation is that as on 01.07.2025, the candidate who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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 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 below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
“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
Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC
(L&S) 488] deals with the right to be appointed from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 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 Law University for recruitment
to the similar posts and there cannot be any different standard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
21. In view of these reasons, the Writ Petitions stand
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
3.It is informed that a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.730 of 2025 had also
been filed and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 12.03.2025.
4.In view of the same, I hold that there are no grounds to entertain the
writ petitions. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No cost.
Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
17.03.2025
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Law Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
4th Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. MGR Centenary Building,
DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
17.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:04 pm )
