Judgment : 1. Heard the submissions of Mr. K. Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education). With the consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner avers that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community by birth and with great difficulties, able to complete B.Sc. Degree in Zoology in the year 2001. After completion of Under Graduate, he joined B.L. Course in Tirunelveli Government Law College and completed the course in the year 2004. Initially, the petitioner was practicing in Tirunelveli Courts and thereafter, shifted his practice to High Court of Judicature at Madras. The petitioner also joined M.L. Course in Crime and Torts in Dr. Ambedkar Government College and completed his M.L. Degree in the year 2007. 3. The petitioner would further aver that he joined the Changalpattu Government Law College as a Guest Lecturer and since he is finding difficulty to travel between Chennai and Chengalpattu, he applied for the Post of Guest Lecturer in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College at Chennai and he was appointed during October 2009. 4. The petitioner in order to improve his qualification further in the teaching profession, wrote National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the 5th respondent in June 2009 and successfully passed the said test during June 2009. According to the petitioner, that in view of his Post Graduate Qualification in Law, and passing of NET, he is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer in any one of the Law Colleges in India. 5. The petitioner further stated that the third respondent issued an advertisement in News Dailies calling for applications for filling up the posts of Lecturers (Senior Scale) Lectures (Senior Scale) (Pre-law) by way of direct recruitment for Government Law Colleges in the years 2007-2008, 20092010. The third respondent issued the said Notification on behalf of the first respondent and as per the instructions given by the second respondent. The petitioner also averred that the above said advertisement is contrary to UGC Regulations and that the advertisement would specify the Master‘s Degree in Law as Specialized in particular subject for which recruitment is to be made, but the same has not been done. The petitioner also averred that the above said advertisement is contrary to UGC Regulations and that the advertisement would specify the Master‘s Degree in Law as Specialized in particular subject for which recruitment is to be made, but the same has not been done. Moreover, the advertisement should also specify that a person should hold a Post Graduate Degree in Law with NET/SET Qualifications. But, the said qualification has not been prescribed. Therefore, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition praying for appropriate direction to issue suitable amendment to the advertisement No. 5 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 issued by the third respondent. 6. The second respondent has filed a counter contending that as per G.O. Ms. No. 263, Law (LS) Department, dated 20.12.2005, the Government issued amendments to Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service based on the qualifications prescribed by UGC for the teaching posts and the following qualifications were prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale): “ (i) Master‘s degree in Law of any recognised University with not less than 55 percent marks and a good academic record; Provided that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall possess not less than 50 percent marks: Provided further that the holders of Ph.D. in Law, who have passed their Master ‘ s degree in Law prior to 19.9.1991 shall possess not less than 50 percent marks in the Master ‘ s degree in Law: (ii) Must have qualified in the National Eligibility Test (NET) or an accredited Test; and (iii) Must have enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council. Provided that other things being equal, preference shall be given to persons who have actual experience at the Bar or teaching experience ” . It is further averred in the counter that the above said amendment does not specify or require subject-wise cadre in the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service and hence, subject-wise vacancies are not mentioned in the impugned Notification. It is further averred by the second respondent that any person who had obtained Master ‘ s Degree in Law can teach the subject Law for the students pursuant to a Bachelor Course in Law and hence non-mentioning of subject-wise vacancies cannot be termed as an infirmity and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Mr. It is further averred by the second respondent that any person who had obtained Master ‘ s Degree in Law can teach the subject Law for the students pursuant to a Bachelor Course in Law and hence non-mentioning of subject-wise vacancies cannot be termed as an infirmity and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Mr. K. Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier advertisement dated 9.12.2006 issued by the third respondent wherein applications were called for direct recruitment of Lecturers (Senior Scale) for Government Law Colleges (2006-2007) and in Clause No. 4, estimated vacancies were indicated. “Tamil” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that number of writ petitions were filed challenging the vires of the said Notification. 8. A single Bench of this Court, in the said writ petitions, (Hon‘ble Mr. Justice K. CHANDRU), has considered the scope of UGC Regulations and other materials, held as follows: “ Hence, the Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 263 Law Department dated 20.2.2005 prescribing the qualification for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) as well as the requisition dated 18.8.2006, made by the State to the TRB to recruit teachers with such qualifications are declared to be ultra vires to the UGC Regulations dated 4.4.2000 and un al and any consequential selections made will have validity in the eye of law. The respondent State is directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with law. ” 9. The Government of Tamil Nadu as well as some of the applicants made a challenge to the said order by filing writ appeals and the writ appeals were taken up together and were disposed of by a common order dated 20.3.2009 by a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: (i) The Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to entertain the applications of those candidates who have their Master ‘ s Degree with specialization in the particular subjects. (ii) As far as the candidates with Master‘s Degree in Business Law are concerned, their applications shall also be entertained, inasmuch as Business Law covers Papers of Contract. (iii) As far as the application of Ms. (ii) As far as the candidates with Master‘s Degree in Business Law are concerned, their applications shall also be entertained, inasmuch as Business Law covers Papers of Contract. (iii) As far as the application of Ms. K. Latha, who is the appellant in W.A. No. 283 of 2009, is concerned, she has produced before us a Certificate issued by the Registrar of Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University dated 19.3.2009, which states that the subjects prescribed for Law of Contracts and the subjects prescribed for Business Law for the Post Graduate Degree offered in the said University are one and the same. In fact, that would be so in most of the Universities, and therefore, we direct the Board to consider her application along with those who have done Master ‘ s Degree in Business Law for the post of Lecturers in Law of Contracts. (iv) The order of the learned single Judge in setting aside the entire selection process is set aside, and the Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to act in accordance with the directions issued in this judgment. ” 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education 2009 more particularly to Clause No. 4.4.0 and 4.4.1 and it is relevant to extract the same: “ 4.4.0 Assistant Professor 4.4.1. Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social sciences, Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication. i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of the marks or equivalent grade where grading system is practiced at the Master ‘ s degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. iii. ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. iii. Holders of Ph.D. degree as on the date of Notification of these Regulations, along with those candidates who are awarded a Ph.D. degree through a process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation as laid down in the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulations, 2009 and so adopted by the university, shall be exempted from NET/SLET/SET. iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted subject to the conditions stipulated in these Regulations in Clause, 3.3.3. ” It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though in the impugned advertisement in respect of recruitment to Lecturer (Senior Scale) (Pre-Law), specialization in the subjects has been indicated, however, in respect of Lecturer (Senior Scale-Law) relevant/specialization in subjects has not at all been indicated. The result being that the person who is having Post Graduate qualification in Law of Crimes may take the class in respect of Contract or vice versa and the same is not in the interest of the students, for the reason that, since the concerned Lecturer has not spacializad in the subject, it may be difficult for him to take class in a particular subject in which he is not specialized and it may require lot of preparation on his part. 11. Lastly, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned Notification is not in consonance with the above said orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court and therefore, prayed for suitable/appropriate modification/amendment in the impugned Notification. 12. Per contra, Mr. P. Subramsnian, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education), has submitted that as per the amendments made to Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service in G.O. Ms. No. 263 Law (LS) Department, dated 20.12.2005, there is no requirement for subject-wise cadre in the Tamil Nadu Lagal Educational Service and that it is not necessary to select and recruit persons to the post of Lecturer (senior Scale-Law) on the basis of various specializations of law as claimed by the petitioner and hence prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 13. 13. This Court bestowed its attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. On an earlier occasion, W.P. No. 633 of 2009 was filed to identify the SC/ST backlog vacancies in the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and to fill up those vacancies within a stipulated time and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2009 P. Vasanthakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu and 9 Others, 2010 (1) C.L.T page 741 has passed the following order: “ 5. The backlog vacancies would be first filled up against the total number of vacancies now identified. The number of SC/ST backlog vacancies are 6 out of 29 in Senior Scale and 1 out of 16 in Senior Scale (Pre-law). Then recruitment notification will be issued. The remaining vacancies, namely, 23 in Lecturer (Senior Scale) vacancies and 15 in Lecturer (Senior Scale) (Pre-law) vacancies will be filled up applying the rule of reservation as per law. The 7 SC/ST backlog vacancies in the full time teaching posts of the Government Law Colleges mentioned above as well as the remaining vacancies shall be notified along with other vacancies and the notification will be issued within three weeks from today. 6. We asked the Director of Legal Studies whether the present number of Lecturers is sufficient. He informed us that it was not sufficient but it would take some time to identify the required number of teachers. After these vacancies are filled up, the Director of Legal Studies shall identify the number of teachers required and within three months give a representation to the Government which shall be considered expeditiously by the Government and suitable orders shall be passed for want of Lecturers. We also asked him the position with regard to part-time recruitment. He informed that in view of the guidelines issued by the UGC, as and when the existing part-time Lecturers retire, consequently arising vacancies would be filled up only by regular vacancies and in course of time, there will not be any part-time Lecturers. 7. Though this writ petition only pertains to unfilled backlog of SC/ST vacancies, since the learned Advocate General is present, we requested the Advocate General to ensure that the vacancies in the Dr. Ambedkar School of Excellence in law are also promptly filled up. 7. Though this writ petition only pertains to unfilled backlog of SC/ST vacancies, since the learned Advocate General is present, we requested the Advocate General to ensure that the vacancies in the Dr. Ambedkar School of Excellence in law are also promptly filled up. The State shall bear in mind, we were the leaders in the field of education in the past. The legal education provided by this State shall be excellent in all respects. ” 15. Admittedly, not only SC/ST backlog vacancies and other vacancies were also not filled up for quite some time and Government took a decision to recruit Lecturers and accordingly instructed the third respondent to issue an advertisement and accordingly the impugned advertisement came to be issued. The third respondent earlier issued an advertisement dated 9.12.2006 for filling up the Post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) for Government Law Colleges 2006-2007 by way of direct recruitment and the subject-wise estimated vacancies was also specifically given. Persons aggrieved by the issuance of the above said advertisement, filed number of writ petitions and those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 22.7.2008. In the common order, it was held that the Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 263 Law Department dated 20.12.2005 prescribing qualification for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) as well as requisition dated 18.8.2006 made by the State to the Teachers Recruitment Board, to recruit teachers with such qualifications are declared to be ultra vires to the UGC Regulations dated 4.4.2000 and the official respondents were directed to amend special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit the candidates. Challenge was made to the said common order by filing writ appeals and in paragraph No. 8 it has been held as follows: “ 8. A perusal of the above directive would clearly show that for the post of Lecturers including Law Lecturers, a good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master ‘ s degree level in the relevant subject is required. This being the position, in our view, there is no conflict between the UGC Directive and the Advertisement issued by the State. The Advertisement and the Directive will have to be read harmoniously. The subjects have been specified, and it is also stated that the person has to hold Master‘s Degree in Law. This being the position, in our view, there is no conflict between the UGC Directive and the Advertisement issued by the State. The Advertisement and the Directive will have to be read harmoniously. The subjects have been specified, and it is also stated that the person has to hold Master‘s Degree in Law. It will obviously mean Master‘s Degree in a particular subject. Some candidates are holding Master‘s Degree in Law with specialization in some other subjects. They cannot be said to be eligible to teach these specified subjects. An Advertisement is a notice to the candidates that the candidates are expected to apply in pursuance of the advertisement. When the advertisement specifies particular subjects, those who have basic Master‘s Degree in Law in respect of specialization in those subjects are expected to apply. The Board cannot select persons who have Master‘s Degree in Law in other subjects to teach these four specified subjects. Any such interpretation or action would be bad. ” 16. It is pertinent to point out in paragraph No. 8 a Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Board (Teachers Recruitment Board) cannot select persons who have Master ‘ s Degree in law and other subjects to teach those 4 specified subjects (Labour and Administrative Law, Law of Contracts, Property Law and Crime and Torts). Any such interpretation or action would be bad. However, the Teacher Recruitment Board seems to have ignored the said findings even though it was a party to the writ appeals and issued the impugned advertisement without specifying the subjects in law for which recruitment is made. 17. The present period is the era of specialization and persons who had done Post raduate in Law in a particular subject can teach the students in respect of the particular subject more efficiently and the Lecturers can also constantly upto date their knowledge relevant to the particular subject. Ultimately, the students will be benefited as they will be in a position to assimilate the Lectures. The stand taken by the third respondent would disclose that irrespective of the specialization of the subject in law, the Lecturers to be recruited can take classes/teach the students in any subjects of law. 18. Ultimately, the students will be benefited as they will be in a position to assimilate the Lectures. The stand taken by the third respondent would disclose that irrespective of the specialization of the subject in law, the Lecturers to be recruited can take classes/teach the students in any subjects of law. 18. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said stand taken by the third respondent is not in order and also not in accordance with the sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.4.1 of UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education, 2009. The impugned advertisement is also not in consonance with the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.3.2009 made in Writ Appeal No. 205 of 2009 batch etc. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to issue suitable amendment/corrigendum to the advertisement No. 5 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 by incorporating subject-wise vacancies for the post of Lecturers (Senior Scale-Law) and thereafter proceed further with the recruitment process in accordance with law. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to do the said exercise as expeditiously as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order as number of vacancies remain un-filled for quite some time in Government Law Colleges throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, which in turn affects the students studying in those colleges to very great extent. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.