ORDER : The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 issued by the second respondent and strike down Rule 4(a), Item No.4 in Column Post (1) Assistant Professor with respect to the age which had been given as 40 years in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service and quash the impugned recruitment notification No. 1 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025 to that extent. The petitioner seeks that the first respondent must issue a fresh notification adhering to the UGC Regulation 2018. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been contended that the writ petitioner had passed her two years L.L.M Degree from Mahatma Gandhi University scoring 72% with specialization in Commercial Laws. She also passed NET examination in January 2018 conducted by the University of Grants Commission and claims that she is qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law. It was also stated that she was also a Guest Faculty in School of Law, Pondicherry University. She is also doing her Ph.D., in Corporate Governance and Climate Change Law in India in Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala. 3. Pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent on 24.01.2024 calling for applications for among other posts, Assistant Professor (Law) in Government Law Colleges – 2025, she had intended to apply for the same. But however, she found to her dismay that the upper age limit stipulated was 40 years. Further, the vacancies were notified subjectwise, and it was expected that the PG Law Degree in law should also be related to such subjects. Questioning the notification in so far as these two conditions are concerned, namely, the outer age limit of 40 years and the further stipulation of possessing PG in Law in specified subjects, the petitioner had sought interference with the said notification dated 24.01.2025 in Notification No.1/2025. Questioning the notification in so far as these two conditions are concerned, namely, the outer age limit of 40 years and the further stipulation of possessing PG in Law in specified subjects, the petitioner had sought interference with the said notification dated 24.01.2025 in Notification No.1/2025. But however, further noting that the age limit had been prescribed consequent to an earlier Governance Order which had been passed in G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022, the petitioner had also sought to call for the records relating to the said Government Order and to quash the same only to the extent of prescribing the age limit for those who apply for the post of Assistant Professor of Law. 4. In the aforementioned Government Order, again it had been mentioned that the outer age limit would be 40 years and it had been further stipulated that those who have experience in teaching can avail the benefit of one additional year for every year which they discharged service as teachers subject to a maximum of 5 years. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that both these stipulations, namely, the outer age limit for 40 years and the stipulation that the Masters Degree in Law should only be with respect to a specified subject were not part of the UGC guidelines 2018. The learned counsel pointed out that in the UGC guidelines 2018 with respect to the post of Assistant Professor, the only requirement stipulated so far as the educational qualification is concerned, was a Masters Degree with 55% marks in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. It is thus contended that any candidate, who has a Masters Degree in Law, irrespective of the particular subject in which such Masters Degree in Law had been obtained should be eligible to participate in the recruitment process as contemplated in Notification No.1/2025 dated 24.01.2025. In the notification, it had been provided that for the post of Assistant Professor, those candidates, who had possessed Master's Degree in Property Law, Crime and Torts Criminal Law, Labour Law, Environment Law, Administrative Law and Taxation Law alone would be eligible and would be required by the respondents as the posts were with respect to those vacancies in those particular subjects. 6. 6. Assailing the restriction placed in this regard on the specialization of the subjects while acquiring Masters Degree in Law, the learned counsel stated that any candidate, who had a Degree Masters in Law in any discipline related to law should be considered as being eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor as called for in Notification No.1 of 2025. With respect to the age limitation, the learned counsel argued that the UGC guidelines do not prescribed any upper limit and therefore, stated that restricting the age to 40 years by G.O.Ms.No. 233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 referred supra, directly affected the prospects of the petitioner herein and stated that any stipulation which was not found in the UGC guidelines should be considered as being indirect contradiction to the UGC guidelines. 7. In this connection, the learned counsel pointed out that the UGC guidelines are binding on the State Government. It was therefore argued that the Government will have to abide by the restrictions given by UGC and when the UGC guidelines do not prescribed an upper age limit for the post of Assistant Professor in Law, such a stipulation in the notification, should be declared as not withstanding the scrutiny of this Court. 8. In this connection, the learned counsel further pointed out the notification issued for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for Government Arts and Science Colleges issued on 14.03.2024 in Notification No. 02 of 2024 wherein with respect to the age, the upper age limit was fixed at 57 years. The learned counsel therefore argued that the Notification No.1 of 2015 was in contradiction to the earlier notification issued by the respondents themselves. 9. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 INSC 1137 Neutral Citation [Sreejith P.S. Vs. Rajasree M.S. and Ors.] wherein while examining non compliance of procedure and more particularly with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor without confirming to the guidelines as stipulated by the UGC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that adherence to such guidelines are sacrosanct and had held as follows:- “8.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations have been specifically adopted by the State Government. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the order dated 27.03.2010, while adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in paragraph 5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC Regulations in their Statutes and Regulations within one month from the date of the said order and Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of the Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is further mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the steps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the UGC Regulations. Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/State’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGC Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.” 10. The learned counsel pointed out that a direction had been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all Universities shall incorporate the UGC guidelines in their statue and regulations and a specific time period was also given. In that particular case, it was very specifically mentioned that such regulations were also applicable with respect to appointment of Vice Chancellors in the respective Universities in the State and that such appointment shall always be under the relevant provisions of the UGC guidelines as amended from time to time. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the observations of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala reported in 2022/KER/59643 Neutral Citation [Sebastian Joseph and Others Vs. the University of Kerala and Others] wherein a challenge was made seeking relaxation of the upper age limit of 50 years for candidates who intended to apply for the posts of Professors in various departments under the University of Kerala. the University of Kerala and Others] wherein a challenge was made seeking relaxation of the upper age limit of 50 years for candidates who intended to apply for the posts of Professors in various departments under the University of Kerala. The learned Single Judge had again examined implementation of the UGC guidelines 2018 and observed that the UGC guidelines 2018 was silent so far as the age restrictions or stipulation is concerned and therefore, held that the candidates, who had crossed that particular age limit of 50 years should also be permitted to apply for the post and placed an obligation on the respondents to call them for interview subject to satisfaction of other eligible criteria and qualifications. 12. Placing his arguments on the aforementioned points, the learned counsel urged that this Court must therefore pass necessary orders permitting the petitioner to also participate in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor in law as called in Notification No.1 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025. 13. On the side of the respondents, it had been also contended that the UGC guidelines are applicable and binding on the Universities within the State and that the State Government had also taken a conscious decision to adhere to the stipulations given in the UGC guidelines 2018 which is in force as on date. However, it had been pointed out that since the UGC guidelines did not prescribe an outer age limit, the Government was well within its authority to prescribe a specific age limit and the learned counsel therefore justified the stipulation of the age limit in the notification. 14. With respect to the stipulation that the Master's Degree in Law must be with respect to specific subjects, it had been contended that the vacancies were only to teach with those subjects and therefore, in the notification, it had been held out that those who have Master's Degree in Law in such relevant subjects, should apply for the post. It had been contended that as the employer, the respondents have every right to call for those candidates, who have Master's Degree in Law in those subjects wherein there are vacancies as this would only be beneficial for the students. The learned counsel therefore justified the notification issued. 15. It had been contended that as the employer, the respondents have every right to call for those candidates, who have Master's Degree in Law in those subjects wherein there are vacancies as this would only be beneficial for the students. The learned counsel therefore justified the notification issued. 15. Let me also state at the very outset that this Court had occasion to examine the challenge made to the age criteria as fixed in the Notification No.1 of 2025 in two earlier Writ Petitions filed before this Court in W.P.No. 5860 & 5165 of 2025. By a common order rendered on 27.02.2025, this Court had rejected the challenge made to the stipulation of the outer age limit. It must be readily pointed out that in those Writ Petitions, G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 was not put to test as is being put to test in this Writ Petition. This naturally makes it necessary for this Court to examine the origin and the necessity for passing G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022. 16. A perusal of the said Government Order itself reveals a few revealing facts. In the reference column, there is a reference to common orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 19.08.2021 in W.P.Nos. 19534 of 2018 and etc cases and R.A.No. 195 of 2019 in W.A.No. 533 of 2018. 16. A perusal of the said Government Order itself reveals a few revealing facts. In the reference column, there is a reference to common orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 19.08.2021 in W.P.Nos. 19534 of 2018 and etc cases and R.A.No. 195 of 2019 in W.A.No. 533 of 2018. In the preamble portion of the Government Order, it had been stated as follows:- “The Division Bench of High Court of Madras in the Order 5 th read above, among other things, observing that the qualifications, viz., M.L., Degree and enrollment as advocate, as prescribed in the impugned Notifications, in addition to the postgraduate degree in the relevant subject for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor for Pre-law course in the Government Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are declared as illegal, as the same suffer from patent irrationality, unreasonableness and arbitrariness and the disputed qualifications are in effect inconsistent with the Legal Education Rules, 2008 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India in terms of the powers of the Advocates Act, 1961 and has declared that the G.O.(Ms).No. 1349 and G.O.(Ms)No. 264 dated 19.11.1985 and 20.12.2005 as illegal and unconstitutional as the same are repugnant to the minimum standards laid down by the Bar Council of India in the Legal Educational Rules 2008 in terms of Section 7(1)(h)(i) read with Section 49 (af) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Division Bench of High Court of Madras has also directed the State Authorities to revisit the entire eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor or any other post in the teaching faculty in respect of the Government Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu and also to conform to the minimum standards fixed by the Bar Council of India and expedite the process of recruitment in order to avoid any academic dislocation. As per the aforesaid order of the High Court, the Director of Legal Studies was requested to send the proposal for amending the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service.” 17. It is seen from the above, that a Division Bench of this Court in the batch of cases in W.P.No. 19534 of 2018 batch had examined the qualification namely ML Degree and enrollment as an Advocate as prescribed in the notification. It is seen from the above, that a Division Bench of this Court in the batch of cases in W.P.No. 19534 of 2018 batch had examined the qualification namely ML Degree and enrollment as an Advocate as prescribed in the notification. The notification which had been examined by the Division Bench was with respect to the post of Assistant Professor (Pre Law) as is the case in the instant Writ Petition in Government Law Colleges. It was stated that in the earlier notification, which was challenged and examined by the Division Bench, there was a possibility that candidates, who did not possess M.L. Degree or Ph.D. Degree could also be appointed as Assistant Professors. Therefore, the existing rules were amended in accordance with the directions of this Court. 18. This particular fact that G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 was not a standalone Government Order but a Government Order issued under directions of this Court is a distinct factor which this Court will have to give due credence. In the orders of the Division Bench, directions also given to regularise the service of Part Time Lecturers and also with respect to issuance of Sub Rules for the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service by duly incorporating necessary provisions. It was pursuant to the directions of this Court that G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 had been issued by the respondents. 19. In the said Government Order, one factor which also has to be pointed out is that the appointing authority for these posts shall be the Government. It must also be pointed out that the University, as pointed out in the order in W.P.Nos. 5860 and 5165 of 2025, namely, the Dr.Ambedkar Law University is not the authority to appoint the candidates. Even in those Writ Petitions, an argument had been put up that in the notification issued by the Dr.Ambedkar Law University, an outer age limit of 57 years was prescribed and that restricting it to 40 years in the notification issued which is now under challenge was prejudicial to the applicants. 20. But, the appointment made by the Dr.Ambedkar Law University are distinct. The notification now under challenge had been issued by the Government for posts to the Government Law Colleges. The appointing authority is not the University but the Government. 20. But, the appointment made by the Dr.Ambedkar Law University are distinct. The notification now under challenge had been issued by the Government for posts to the Government Law Colleges. The appointing authority is not the University but the Government. In the qualifications as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 very specifically the age limit had been given as 40 years and a further leverage is given for those who had teaching experience. They can get an additional bonus of one year subject to a maximum of 5 years. Therefore, the outer age limit can extend to only 45 years and not beyond. This direction has been introduced consequent to a judicial order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Government is bound by these directions. If the directions issued by the Division Bench are violative of the stipulations as stated by the UGC, then such an argument should have been placed before the Division Bench or the UGC could very well have taken up the directions issued by the Division Bench in further appeal and pointed out that the guidelines are in violation of the UGC guidelines. No such challenge has been pointed out to me. 21. The directions of the Division Bench are still in force. They are binding on this Court. The Government Order was passed in pursuant to the directions. The notification had been issued taking into consideration two aspects. The first is the directions issued by the Division Bench. The second is the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 issued by the Government consequent to the directions issued by the Division Bench. 22. It must also be pointed out that the appointing authority is the Government and therefore, they are also bound by the directions issued by the Division Bench. Even in the earlier Writ Petition, it had been observed by this Court that increasing the age limit would only lead to arbitrariness. The outer age limit could be relaxed by two years, by three years, by four years, by five years or even an unlimited age can be prescribed for those with qualification of M.L.Degree to participate in the selection process. That would be lead to a chaotic situation. 23. The Division Bench had as its focus imparting quality legal education to the students of the Government Law Colleges across the State of Tamil Nadu. That would be lead to a chaotic situation. 23. The Division Bench had as its focus imparting quality legal education to the students of the Government Law Colleges across the State of Tamil Nadu. In their wisdom, the Division Bench held that certain stipulations will have to be put in place for those who aspire to apply for the post of Assistant Professor. Those stipulations will necessarily have to be abided with by the Government while calling for applications. 24. It is also to be noted that G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 had been passed and the Writ petitioner had not thought it fit or necessary or even required to challenge the same all these years. She had laid a challenge at the last minute and on the last date of applying for the post. The petitioner could have been a little more vigilant in this aspect. But once it is held by this Court that the Government Order had been passed only on the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, it would hardly lie in the mouth of the petitioner to question the Government Order without challenging the directions issued by the Division Bench. Those directions were the source for putting in place the stipulations in the Government Order and unless those directions are revisited by the Division Bench in manner known to law, I am afraid the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 would not lie and on that ground, I am not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the observations of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the Judgment referred supra, reported in 2022/KER/59643 Neutral Citation. However, the condition in that particular case was a stand alone stipulation and it was found that since the UGC Guidelines 2018 did not prescribe an outer age limit, it was not proper on the part of the University of Kerala to prescribe such age limit. The Universities across the country are directly under the control of UGC and have to abide with the guidelines as stipulated by the UGC. 26. In the instant case, there are two distinguishing factors. The Universities across the country are directly under the control of UGC and have to abide with the guidelines as stipulated by the UGC. 26. In the instant case, there are two distinguishing factors. The first is that G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 as repeatedly pointed out had been passed under directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and the second is that it is the Government which is the appointing authority. The reasonings of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court are certainly appreciable but cannnot be applied to the distinct facts of this particular case. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 INSC 1137 [Sreejith P.S Vs. Rajasree M.S., and Ors.] Neutral Citation referred supra. That was with respect to the appointment of a Vice Chancellor to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram. Once again that particular University was directly bound by the guidelines of the UGC. It was found on facts that the appointment of a particular individual as Vice Chancellor fell foul by the UGC guidelines. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore had necessarily intervened to point out that even in appointments the Universities are bound by UGC guidelines and cannot have their own stipulations and rules and regulations and qualifications. 28. To reiterate, the Division Bench of this Court had applied its mind with specific reference to the legal education in this State and very importantly to Government Law Colleges and had put place in guidelines. G.O.Ms.No.233, Law (LS) Department, dated 11.04.2022 had been issued only in accordance with those guidelines. 29. I hold that the challenge to the Government Order would necessarily have to fail. 30. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the stipulation of specific subjects in the Master's Degree. Even in the UGC guidelines relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that for the post of Assistant Professor, the required qualification is a Master's Degree in a concerned / relevant / allied subject. The key words are “relevant subject”. Even in the UGC guidelines relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that for the post of Assistant Professor, the required qualification is a Master's Degree in a concerned / relevant / allied subject. The key words are “relevant subject”. In the instant case, the notification had stated that students who are pursuing their courses in Property Law, Law of Crimes, Law of Torts, Criminal Law, Labour Law, Environment Law, Administrative Law and Taxation Law will have to be specifically imparted with education and naturally those who are qualified in Master's Degree in those subjects alone would be in a better position to impart quality education. It is not required to enter upon a discussion on the relevancy of knowledge and specialization in a special subject so far as the legal field is concerned. If there has got to be training imparted to students who seek to aspire to study Taxation Law, it can hardly be said with due respects, if that candidate who has specialised in Masters in Law, in Criminal Law could teach such a student. Let me not venture into answering that particular question but raise it as a moot question. 31. The UGC guidelines have therefore been very careful while stipulating the educational qualification and they have not stated that a Master's Degree alone is sufficient. They have stated that a Master's Degree in the concerned subject, namely, the subject in which the particular individual is to take class should have been acquired by the candidate before he or she is appointed to the post of Assistant Professor. 32. I am informed that the petitioner herein has a Master's Degree in Commercial Law and unfortunately, though her qualification is deeply appreciated and is a Degree which could ally to Business Law or Law of contract still, she is not qualified in the exact subject required. 33. It is also to be noted that the Constitution Bench in the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2025) 2 SCC 1 [ Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others] had examined the issue or Rules of the game and 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. Rajasthan High Court and Others] had examined the issue or Rules of the game and 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, 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 fill in the gaps; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. 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. ” 34. In view of the reasons stated, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No. 8226 of 2025 stands ordered as prayed for. W.M.P.Nos. 8251 & 8253 of 2025 stand closed. No order as to costs.