Madras High Court
D.Jeevarathiram vs . on 19 March, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.10198 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.11447, 11452 & 11454 of 2025
D.Jeevarathiram
Vs.
1.The State
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Law,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chairman,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
4.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
Greenways Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
2
5.The Director,
O/o. Directorate of Legal Studies,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
6.The State,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of Notification / Advertisement No.1 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025 issued by the
2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent to issue fresh Notification in line with the UGC norms and
regulations with Higher Education Department of Tamil Nadu Rules and
Regulations.
For Petitioner .. Mr.G.Thiyagarajan
For R1, R4 & R6 .. Mr.D.Ravichander, Spl. Govt. Pleader
For R2 .. Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel
For R5 .. Nallathambi
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of Notification No.1 of 2025 dated
24.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and
consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notification in line with
the UGC norms and regulations with Higher Education Department of Tamil
Nadu Rules and Regulations.
2.The petitioner 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.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the writ petitioner
belongs to Scheduled Caste community and therefore, there must be a
relaxation in age of five years granted and therefore, contended that the
maximum age limit of 40 should be relaxed to 45 years and further, in
accordance with the experience, one additional year must be granted.
However, in the notification, it is contended that this particular relaxation of
additional five years has not been granted to the petitioner, who belongs to
the Scheduled Caste community.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
4.It is seen from the notification that vertical reservation has been
granted and it had been very specifically stated that 69% of the communal
reservation would be followed vertically as per existing Government
Rules/Orders, namely, 18% shall be reserved for the Scheduled Caste
including 3% reservation for the Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyars (SCA) on
preferential basis amongst the Scheduled Caste, 1% for the Scheduled Tribes
and further percentage for other communities. It is however stated that
horizontal reservation for age relaxation has not been provided horizontal
reservation is applicable for 30% of women within the vertical reservation.
There cannot be a further horizontal reservation within the horizontal
reservation. The view stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner may
therefore not withstand the judicial scrutiny. There can be vertical
reservation and within the vertical reservation, there can be a horizontal
reservation for women, for physically disabled and for such other special
categories. But, within the horizontal reservation, there cannot be a further
reservation with respect to age. I am not able to accede to the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Similar matters had come up for consideration before this Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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:-
“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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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. ”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
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.
21. In view of these reasons, the Writ Petitions stand
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
6.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.
7.In view of the above reasonings, I hold that there are no grounds to
entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No cost. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
19.03.2025
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Law,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chairman,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
4.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
Greenways Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
5.The Director,
O/o. Directorate of Legal Studies,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
6.The Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:29 pm )
