Mrs. Jeevarathinam v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of Respondents 2 and 3 relating to the advertisementdated 09.12.2006 vide Advt. No. 5/2006-07 called for directrecruitment of Lecturers (Senior Scale) for Government Law Colleges(2006-07), prospectus and quash the selection by the TeachersRecruitment Board and direct the Teaches Recruitment Board toimplement UGC noms and G.O. Ms. No. 105 dated 20.6.2000 byrecalling of the fresh advertisement for direct recruitment forLecturers (senior scale) for Govt. Law College (2006-2007).W.P. No. 4795 of 2007:-D. Purushothaman.. Petitionervs.1.Teachers Recruitment BoardGovernment of Tamil NaduRep.by its ChairmanE.V.K. Sampath MaligaiDPI CompoundCollege RoadChennai2.Government of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to GovernmentLaw DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai3.K.Latha4.N. Ramapiran Ranhjithsingh.. Respondents(RR 4 and 5 impleaded videorder dated 11.4.2007 in M.P. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2007) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records pertaining to the impugned notification issued by thefirst respondent in Advertisement dated 09.12.2006 vide Advt. No.5/2006-07 published in the New Indian Express and quash the sameand direct the respondents to follow the qualification prescribedby the University Grants Commission as educational qualificationfor filling up the post of Lecturer in the Government Law Colleges.W.P. No. 8723 of 2007:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ D. Binu mole.. Petitionervs.1.Government of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to GovernmentLaw DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai2.The ChairmanTeachers Recruitment BoardE.V.K. Sampath MaligaiDPI CompoundCollege RoadChennai.. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling forthe records of Respondents 1 and 2 relating to the advertisementdated 09.12.2006 vide Advt. No. 5/2006-07 called for directrecruitment of Lecturers (Senior Scale) for Government Law Colleges(2006-07), prospectus and quash the selection by the TeachersRecruitment Board and direct the Teaches Recruitment Board toimplement UGC noms and G.O. Ms. No. 105 dated 20.6.2000 byrecalling of the fresh advertisement for direct recruitment forLecturers (senior scale) for Govt. Law College (2006-2007).For Petitioners : Mr. R. Shivakumarin W.P. Nos. 3028 and 3401 / 2007For Official respondents: Mr. G. Sankaran, Spl. GP Assisted by Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, AGPFor RR4 – 6 in : Mr. L. ChandrakumarW.P. Nos. 3028 &4044 of 2007 For R7 in W.P. No. 3401 of 2007For RR 10 & 11 : Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, SCin W.P. No. 3028/2007, for M/s AL. GanthimathiFor RR7 & 8in W.P. No. 4044 of 2007 &For RR3 & 4in W.P. No. 4795 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R6 : Mr. M. Sriramin W.P. No. 3401 of 2007For Petitioners : Mr. K. Kumar, SCin W.P. Nos. 4044/2007 & for Mr. G. Muthukumar8723 of 2007For Petitioner : Ms. S.T.P. Kuilmozhiin W.P. Nos. 4795/2007 C O M M O N O R D E RThese matters were directed to be posted before this Court forfinal disposal by the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated10.7.2008. 2.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for theparties and perused the records.3.The short question that arises for consideration in thesewrit petitions is whether the State of Tamil Nadu was correct inomitting to notify that the candidates who had applied for the postof Lecturer (Senior Scale) must have their Post Graduate Degree inthe relevant subject. 4.The answer to this question will have a great bearing onthe future legal education in the State of Tamil Nadu.5.The Law Commission headed by the doyen of the Indian BarShri M.C. Setalvad in the report on "Reform of JudicialAdministration" described the situation then prevailing as'chaotic' and the law graduates churned out as 'half baked lawyerswho do not know even the elements of law' and went on to describethem as 'drones' and 'parasites' let loose on society.6.Speaking at the All India Conference of Lawyers on LegalEducation and Training held at New Delhi on 18.11.1994, the thenChief Justice of India A.M. Ahmadi, after referring to the Reportof the Law Commission, observed as follows:-"If the standard of legal education in law schoolsis poor and if enrolment of such 'half-baked'untrained graduates is automatic, as is the positiontoday, the burden has to be borne by the judiciaryat all levels since they are, to use the expressionof Shri Setalved, 'let loose' on the Judiciary.The unbecoming scenes which are witnessed in courtsare largely on account of lack of proper training inlaw and ethical values and the desire to make a fastbuck. The justice delivery system depends on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quality of the Bar and, therefore, the Judiciary isvitally interested in the improvement of legaleducation in the country. I am, therefore, ofthe opinion that the Bar, the Judiciary and the UGCmust join hands to raise the standard of legaleducation in the country."7.Even before the address made by the then Chief Justice,he was part of a committee of three Judges to submit a Report onLegal Education and Entry into Legal Profession. The saidCommittee was formed pursuant to the resolution of the ChiefJustices' Conference held in December 1993. The Committee elicitedopinion of the various Chief Justices. While responding to thequestionnaire sent by the Committee, some Chief Justices fromvarious High Courts pointed out that the standard of teaching hadgone down and there are no proper libraries and the subjectsprescribed in the syllabus were out-dated and that sometimesteachers were assigned subjects in which they had no knowledge ofspecialisation. [See Indian Bar Review Vol. XXII (4) 1995].8.Subsequently, the Conference of the Law Secretaries andLaw Ministers' working group on Legal Education was held inBhubaneshwar during September 1995. The Law Ministers attendingthe conference expressed their concern and the deterioratingstandards in legal education. They were of the opinion thatsuccessful strategy for improving legal education must take intoaccount several elements listed out by them and one of the elementslisted by them is found in their recommendations as Serial No. xv,which is follows:-"Post-graduate courses in law should not be allowedto be taught either in morning / evening colleges orthrough correspondence courses. Such coursesshould not be allowed in institutions which did nothave libraries that proposed latest books andperiodicals in law and competent teachers andstaff."The proposals made by the Bhubaneshwar Conference came to beaccepted by the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on04.11.1995.9.Lamenting on the existing state of legal education, thethen Chairman of the Bar Council of India, in his introductory noteto the Special Number on Legal Education of the Indian Bar Review,wrote as follows:-"The Bar Council is now taking steps to weed outsub-standard institutions after identifying themeither on the basis of inspection report or onreceipt of authentic information about the poor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quality of legal education imparted there. TheCouncil has recently amended its rules with a viewto improving the quality of legal education in thelaw colleges by specifying the total number ofworking hours, proportion of whole-time teachers,the qualifications of teachers, funds to be setapart for construction of building and improvementof library."10.In this context, the University Grants Commission (UGC)revised the qualifications for the post of Lecturers including LawLecturers by its direction dated 19.9.1991.“Lecturer(a) Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce,Education, Physical Education, Foreign Languages andLaw:Good academic record with at least 55% marks or anequivalent grade at Master’s degree level in therelevant subject from an Indian university or anequivalent degree from a foreign university.Candidates besides fulfilling the abovequalifications should have cleared the eligibilitytest for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similartest accredited by the UGC.”11.Subsequently, the UGC issued the Regulations known asUniversity Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required forthe appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universitiesand institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 reiterated thesame qualification and issued a fresh Notification dated 04.4.2000.12.As to the binding nature of such a direction in relationsto Law Colleges came to be considered by the Supreme Court inState of Maharashtra v. Shashikant S. Pujari [2006 (13) SCC175]. In this regard, paragraphs 23 to 25 of the said judgmentmay be usefully extracted below:-Para 23:"The question with regard to retrospective effect ofthe said resolution will have to be answered havingregard to the fact situation obtaining herein. Ifprior to October 1991, the respondent was validlyappointed, he could justifiably contend that the1991 Regulations could not have been given aretrospective effect. With a view to examine thesaid question, we may notice the followingprovisions of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Para 24:Section 14 of the Act reads as under:“14. Consequences of failure ofuniversities to comply with recommendations ofthe Commission.—If any university grantsaffiliation in respect of any course of studyto any college referred to in sub-section (5)of Section 12-A in contravention of theprovision of that sub-section or fails within areasonable time to comply with anyrecommendation made by the Commission underSection 12 or Section 13, or contravenes theprovisions of any rule made under clause (f) orclause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 25, orof any regulation made under clause (e) or (f)or clause (g) of Section 26, the Commission,after taking into consideration the cause, ifany, shown by the university or such failure orcontravention, may withhold from the universitythe grants proposed to be made out of the fundof the Commission.”Para 25:Section 26(1)(e) reads as under:“26. Power to make regulations.—(1) TheCommission may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, make regulations consistent with thisAct and the rules made thereunder,—***(e) defining the qualifications thatshould ordinarily be required of any person tobe appointed to the teaching staff of theuniversity having regard to the branch ofeducation in which he is expected to giveinstructions;”[Emphasis added]13.Further, in a subsequent judgment, the Supreme Court inVeer Kunwar Singh University Ad hoc Teachers Association and othersv. The Bihar State University (C.C.) Service Commission andothers [2007 (4) Supreme 376] in paragraph 35 held as follows:-Para 35:"Creation of sanctioned posts is a sine qua non forrecruitment to the post of lecturers. Adherence tothe statutory provisions therefor is imperative incharacter. No doubt the qualification for holdingthe post of lecturer has since been changed in terms https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the ordinance promulgated in the year 1993, butthen the same was done as per the directions of theUniversity Grants Commission. The colleges whetherconstituent or recognized must have lecturers whoare qualified to hold the post. Qualification tohold the post of lecturer is fixed by the UniversityGrants Commission. A University can ignore thedirections of the University Grants Commission inthis behalf only at its own peril and risk ofderecognition. Neither it is permissible for aUniversity to contravene the directions of theUniversity Grant Commission nor, in our opinion, isit permissible for a court of law to issue adirection contrary thereto...." [Emphasis added]14.In the present case, the State of Tamil Nadu, which isrunning several Law Colleges in the State and which are affiliatedto Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University had originally framedSpecial Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution and constituteda service known as the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service. Thesaid service comprised of a Director of Legal Studies, Professorsand Junior Professors. At that time, the Junior Professors werecategorised as Category II and the qualification prescribed for thesaid post was an M.L. Degree of the Madras University or a Degreeof equivalent standard. Neither any minimum marks nor subjectspecialisation had been mentioned therein.15.Subsequently, when the UGC recommended pay scales forColleges and University Teachers pursuant to the recommendations ofMehrotra committee, the State Government, after consulting allstake-holders including the Director of Legal Studies, issued G.O.Ms. No. 1785 Education Department dated 05.12.1988. In that G.O.,when dealing with the Legal Studies Department, it reclassified thepost of Junior Professor as Lecturer (Senior Scale) and inparagraph 4.10,it was indicated as under:-"(x)The minimum qualification required forappointment to the posts of Lecturers will be thoseprescribed by the U.G.C. from to time.Generally, the minimum qualifications forappointment to the post of Lecturers in the scale ofpay Rs.2,200-4,000 shall be Master's Degree in therelevant subject with at least 55 per cent marks orits equivalent grade and good academic record."16.Thereafter, pursuant to the Rastogi Committee Report, theUGC further recommended revision of scales of pay and the same wasaccepted by the Government of India. The State Governmentaccepting the said report, revised the scale of pay of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ teachers working in the Government and aided colleges and issuedG.O. Ms. No. 111, Higher Education Department dated 24.3.1999.Consequent on the said revision, the scale of pay of the Lecturer(Senior Scale) was revised as follows:-S.No.CategoryExisting Scales of PayRevised Scales ofPay1Lecturer3000-100-3500-125-500010000-325-1520017.With reference to the recruitment of teachers and thequalifications, the said G.O. ordered as follows:-"RECRUITMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS:-Direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturers inGovernment Colleges shall be on the basis of meritthrough All India Advertisement and Selection by theduly constituted Selection Committee to be set upunder statutes.Explanation:-For the above purpose, the duly constitutedState Teachers Recruitment Board will be the agencyto undertake the selection of candidates throughprescribed procedures and to prepare a panel ofcandidates. At the time of recruitment, otherthings being equal, preference will be given tocandidates who possess adequate knowledge in Tamil.(i)The minimum qualification required forappointment to the posts of Lecturers will bethose prescribed by the University GrantsCommission from time to time. Theeducational qualification for the posts ofLecturers, Readers and Principals in collegesare given in Annexue – II."[Emphasis added]18.However, taking advantage of the above order, even thoughthe first portion mentioned in the Explanation about minimumqualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer was asprescribed by the UGC, the annexure II appended to the G.O. merelymentioned the minimum requirement for the post of Lecturer with agood academic record with 55% marks at the Master level and thepossession of National Eligibility Test (NET). The Governmentframed Special Rules by G.O. Ms. No. 263 Law Department dated20.12.2005. By the said G.O., the earlier Special Rule was amendedand the post of Junior Professors was rechristened as Lecturer(Senior Scale) in tune with the UGC recommendations. Though the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 111 Higher Education Departmentdated 24.3.1999 dealt with in annexure II the qualification for thepost of Lecturer and not for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale),the Government, in the present G.O. Ms. No. 263 Law Departmentdated 20.12.2003 prescribed the qualification for the post ofLecturer (Senior Scale), a Master's Degree in Law with not lessthan 55% of marks with good academic record. They thought thatthere is a distinction between the G.O. Ms. No. 1785 EducationDepartment dated 05.12.1988 wherein the relevant subject at thePost-Graduate level was referred to and in G.O. Ms. No. 111, Highereducation dated 20.12.2003, the word 'relevant subject' was notfound. In these two orders of the Government, there is noreference to the UGC directives issued on 04.4.2000 prescribingqualification for the post of Lecturers to be recruited in LawColleges. This attempt by the State Government will not onlyresult in watering down the standard of legal education at higherlevel but also will be in direct conflict with the directives ofthe UGC.19.Armed with this amendment to the Service Rules, the StateGovernment notified the Teaches Recruitment Board [for short,'TRB'] (third respondent herein), by a letter dated 18.8.2006 anddirected them to take steps to recruit 16 posts of Lecturers(Senior Scale) in Government Colleges subject-wise. They werealso directed to follow the communal roster issued by the StateGovernment and also with reference to qualification to follow G.O.Ms. No. 263 Law Department dated 20.12.2005. In accordance withthe requisition made by the State Government, the TRB notified theselection process in the newspapers by Advertisement No. 5/2006-07dated 09.12.2006. The notification provided the estimatedvacancies, which reads as follows:-Sl.No.SubCodeSubjectGTGWBCGWMBCGWSCGWSTGWTotalGWAll1H01LABOUR ANDADMINISTRATIVELAW1 11122H02LAW OF CONTRACTS111113253H03PROPERTY LAW11113144H04CRIME AND TORTS11111415Total3231213111516Abbreviation GT: General TurnBC: Backward ClassMBC: Most Backward ClassSC: Scheduled CasteST: Scheduled TribeW: Women20.After advertising for the posts on subject-wise and alsogranting them subject code and in the Annexure to the application, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the TRB also provided syllabus for the competitive examination forthe recruitment of Lecturer (Senior Scale). In the applicationform, in column No. 1, the candidates were directed to fill up thesubject code and also to indicate the subject for which thecandidate had applied for. 21.Pursuant to the advertisement, 86 applications werereceived before the last date fixed by the TRB which was29.12.2006. After scrutiny of applications, 31 persons werecalled for to write the written examination, which was held on21.01.2007 (which was a Sunday) and the result for the writtenexamination was published on Tuesday, ie., 23.01.2007. Out ofthe 31 candidates, who wrote the written examination, 22 candidateswere called for the interviews, which were held from 13.02.2007 to15.02.2007. While calling the candidates for the interview, thesubjects under which the candidates had applied and wrote thewritten examination were not called for. In many cases, personswho got M.L. Degree in Constitutional Law were called for interviewto the post of Lecturers in Labour Law and Administrative Law, Lawof Contracts, Property Law and Crime and Torts. Finding thatthe petitioners were not called for the interview and alsocandidates who never applied for the particular post of Lecturerand who did not possess the P.G. Qualification in the relevantsubject were called for the interview for such posts, thepetitioners started moving this Court challenging the action ofthe TRB. 22.In W.P. No. 3401 of 2007, this Court granted an interiminjunction for one week on 01.02.2007. Thereafter, after hearingboth sides, by an order dated 12.02.2007, this Court passed thefollowing order:-"Though this Court had given sufficient time forthe respondents to file counter affidavit, the samehas not been filed and the learned Special Govt.Pleader seeks 3 days time to file counter in all thewrit petitions.As the selection process has already commenced,and actual interview is scheduled to be heldtomorrow (i.e., 13.2.2007) keeping the interest ofthe petitioners and also the candidates, who arecalled for interview, in mind, it is directed thatthe interview shall go on. But, the respondentsshall not either finalise the names candidatesselected or issue appointment orders withoutspecific orders from this court."23.In view of the above interim order, though the selectionprocess was completed, but no appointment orders have been issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and in view of the urgency of the situation, the matters weredirected to be posted for final disposal.24.Before going into the main controversy with reference tothe Service Rules and the consequent advertisement made beingopposed to the UGC norms, two other issues were raised by thelearned counsel for the petitioners and they will have to answered.25.The petitioner in W.P. No. 4795 of 2007(D.Purushothaman), having Ph.D. Qualification, contended that theprescription of passing the NET was unnecessary, should not beinsisted upon.26.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgmentof the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brahmo Samaj EducationSociety and others v. State of West Bengal and others [2004 (6)SCC 224]. The following passage found in paragraph 7 of thejudgment may be usefully reproduced:-Para 7:".... The State can very well provide the basicqualification for teachers. Under the UniversityGrants Commission Act, 1956, the University GrantsCommission (UGC) had laid down qualifications to ateaching post in a university by passingRegulations. As per these Regulations UGC conductsNational Eligibility Test (NET) for determiningteaching eligibility of candidates. UGC has alsoauthorised accredited States to conduct State-LevelEligibility Test (SLET). Only a person who hasqualified NET or SLET will be eligible forappointment as a teacher in an aided institution.This is the required basic qualification for ateacher...." Hence, the contention raised that the requirement of NET / SLETshould not be made mandatory should be rejected.27.The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4044 of 2007 and 8723 of2007 raised another contention that the roster point prescribed forvarious posts is not proper and it should be rearranged.28.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the counteraffidavit dated 15.02.2007 wherein it was explained that thereservation was based upon the application of 100 point roster forall the 16 posts at one stretch and it was said to be in accordancewith G.O. Ms. No. 105 P&AR Department dated 20.6.2000. Therespondents having adhered to the communal roster and had followingthe 100 point roster, no exception can be taken by the petitioners.Hence, that contention also must fail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29.This leaves out the contention that the State Governmenthas power to prescribe a qualification in terms of the ServiceRules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and the saiddecision was taken in the interest of students. The followingaverments were made in pages 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit,which may be extracted below:- ".... As per the Special Rules applicable to theTamil Nadu Legal Educational Service, thequalification required for the said post is theMaster's Degree in Law. The Special Rule does notspecify or require subject wise cadre in the LegalEducational Service except the class and categoryreferred to present recruitment i.e., Lecturer(Senior Scale) (formerly known as Junior Professorand re-designated as Lecturer (Senior Scale) in G.O.Ms. No. 1735, Education Department dated 5.12.88).Therefore, what has not been provided in the SpecialRules need not be applied and, therefore, for theconvenient deployment of teachers in the requiredsubjects as there was dearth of candidates, anadjustment in allocation of candidates was followedin the instant case in the interest of the students.Therefore, the petitioners cannot rightly demandthat the candidates in the concerned subjects aloneshould be permitted to take examination for therelevant vacancies."[Emphasis added]30.On the strength of the averments made by the State, Mr.G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader, made the followingsubmissions:-(a)The petitioners, having participated in the selection process,cannot challenge the very selection notification.(b)The petitioners' attack against the notification ismisconceived as it is based upon the Special Rules madefor the service and it does not violate G.O. 111 HigherEducation Department dated 24.3.1999.(c)Alternatively, a submission was made that in the event of thisCourt considering the selection notification was contrary toUGC Regulations, then the existing selection having reachedits finality need not be disturbed and the judgment must bemade to take effect prospectively for future selections.31.Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor some of the private respondents submitted that the term'relevant subject' should be allowed to be defined by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University since many of the new Degrees are having modernnomenclatures. He cited an example of a student having M.L.Degree in Business Law should be allowed to apply for the post ofLecturer in Contracts.32.Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for some of theprivate respondents contended that even holding the worst againstthe official respondents, the petitioners cannot be allowed tochallenge the selection as they had failed to qualify even to callfor the interviews. 33.With regard to the contention that the petitioners cannotbe allowed to challenge the selection notification, it must bestated that there cannot be estoppel against a statute. Even ifany person is appointed contrary to the UGC norms / Regulations,such a person will be held to be an usurper to a public office. Ithas been held by the Supreme Court that any appointment inviolation of the constitutional scheme of Article 14 will be whollyillegal and without jurisdiction. As found in the Veer KunwarSingh University Adhoc Teachers' Association case (cited supra), abody ignoring the directions of the UGC will be doing only at itsown peril and risk of de-recognition and the Courts should not givedirections contrary to UGC Regulations.34.Further, the State Government's stand that the SpecialRules framed by them was in accordance with G.O. No. 111 HigherEducation Department dated 24.3.1999 was erroneous. As can be seenfrom the extracted portion above, the Government itself hadearlier directed the qualification prescribed by UGC from time totime to be adhered in the matter of selection of Lecturers. Thesaid G.O. in annexure II only prescribes qualification for the postof Lecturers and not for Lecturers (Senior Scale). As per thesaid G.O., the Lecturer (Senior Scale) will be given to thoseLecturers who have the requisite experience under the careeradvancement scheme. In fact, under the UGC Scheme, as accepted bythe Government, there is no direct recruitment for the post ofLecturer (Senior Scale) and such status is given under theaccelerated promotion after six yeas of service as a Lecturer.The State Government cannot divorce from the said G.O. the UGCRegulations dated 04.4.2000 and mutilate it by issuing a SpecialRule omitting the words 'relevant subject in the Post-Graduatequalification' which is a must for any recruitment in Colleges.In fact, in the advertisement itself, posts were segregated on thebasis of subject-wise Lecturership and examinations were conductedon the basis of the relevant subject to the post for whichadvertisements have been made. When even at the Senior SecondarySchool level, posts of P.G. Teachers are filled up on the basis ofsubject-wise, it is unthinkable that for the Post-Graduate level ofLegal Education, irrespective of the subject, the teachers can beasked to teach Master's level without any specialisation. Inparagraph 2 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it isaverred as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ".... These Lecturers who are sought to be recruitedpresently shall be deployed for handling classes forMaster's degree in Law and also for the Bachelordegree...."35.There is no averment in the counter affidavit filed bythe State as to why the UGC Regulations dated 04.4.2000 was notadhered to. Even the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, towhich the Government Law Colleges are affiliated, has beenfollowing the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post ofLecturers as can be found in the advertisement dated 10.11.2006 acopy of which is enclosed in the typed set.36.The learned Special Government Pleader contended thatSpecial Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution andhence, it has got autonomy to prescribe the qualifications as notedabove. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) vs. State ofM.P. [1999 (7) SCC 120]Para 36:"It would not be correct to say that the norms foradmission have no connection with the standard ofeducation, or that the rules for admission arecovered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms ofadmission can have a direct impact on the standardsof education. Of course, there can be rules foradmission which are consistent with or do not affectadversely the standards of education prescribed bythe Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 ofList I. For example, a State may, for admission tothe postgraduate medical courses, lay downqualifications in addition to those prescribed underEntry 66 of List I. This would be consistent withpromoting higher standards for admission to thehigher educational courses. But any lowering of thenorms laid down can and does have an adverse effecton the standards of education in the institutes ofhigher education...." Para 52:"Mr Salve, learned counsel appearing for the MedicalCouncil of India has, therefore, rightly submittedthat under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 theIndian Medical Council is empowered to prescribe,inter alia, standards of postgraduate medicaleducation. In the exercise of its powers underSection 20 read with Section 33 the Indian MedicalCouncil has framed regulations which governpostgraduate medical education. These regulations,therefore, are binding and the States cannot, in theexercise of power under Entry 25 of List III, make https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rules and regulations which are in conflict with oradversely impinge upon the regulations framed by theMedical Council of India for postgraduate medicaleducation. Since the standards laid down are in theexercise of the power conferred under Entry 66 ofList I, the exercise of that power is exclusivelywithin the domain of the Union Government. The powerof the States under Entry 25 of List III is subjectto Entry 66 of List I."[Emphasis added]37.Very recently, a Division Bench of this Court vide itsdecision in Secretary, Kamaraj College, Tuticorin v. D.S.Arulmani and others [2008 (2) M.L.J. 593] dealt with theapplication of G.O. Ms. No. 111 Higher Education Department dated24.3.1999 vis-a-vis the Private Colleges Act and held that alegislation made by the State cannot override the said G.O. and UGCRegulations are binding on the affiliated Colleges in the matter ofselection to the posts of Lecturers. 38.In the light of the above, the argument of the learnedSpecial Government Pleader must be necessarily rejected. Thealternative prayer, viz., that the judgment of this Court must bemade to have prospective effect cannot be accepted as under Article226 of the Constitution, this Court lacks any such power topostpone the effect of its judgment. If a law made by the State isheld to be unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional even from theday on which it is made. Therefore, such a request made onbehalf of the State cannot be conceded.39.The other argument made by the private respondents alsodoes not merit consideration in the light of the legal precedentsreferred to above. 40.However, it is made clear that if there is any claim thatthe postgraduate degree obtained by a candidate is equivalent tothe subject for which advertisement has been made and whether itwas a relevant subject relating to the Post-Graduate Degree is amatter which the University, being an academic body, will have todecide such issues. The State can apply to the Law Universitybefore making advertisement and find out as to the degrees whichhave relevant subjects to the post for which is sought to be filledup and notify the same. This Court is not competent to pronounceon such matters. 41.Hence, the Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 263 LawDepartment dated 20.02.2005 prescribing the qualification for thepost of Lecturer (Senior Scale) as well as the requisition dated18.8.2006 made by the State to the TRB to recruit teachers withsuch qualifications are declared to be ultra vires to the UGC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regulations dated 04.4.2000 and unconstitutional and anyconsequential selections made will have no validity in the eye oflaw. The respondent State is directed to amend the Special Rulesin accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request theTRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordancewith law. 42.The State is well advised to see the reason behind thelaws and not the shadows as its laws. Such distinction wasbeautifully brought out by Khalil Gibran in one of his poems whichis worth quoting:-"When two people stand in a sunlightWith their backs to the SunThey see only their shadows, if Shadows are their laws,They see only law but never the reason behind the lawie., the Sun who is the reason behind the shadows."43.In the light of the above, all the writ petitions aredisposed of to the extent indicated above. However, there willbe no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions willstand closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1.Government of Tamil NaduRep. by Secretary to GovernmentLaw DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai2.The Secretary to GovernmentP&AR DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The ChairmanTeachers Recruitment BoardE.V.K. Sampath MaligaiDPI CompoundCollege RoadChennai4.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.39222+ 2 CC To Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate SR NO.39292+ 1 CC To M/s.AL.Ganthimathi Advocate SR NO.39149+ 1 CC To Mr.G.Muthukumar Advocate SR NO.38955+ 1 CC To Mr.R.Shivakumar Advocate SR NO.38915+ 1 CC To M/s.Veera Kathiravan Advocate SR NO.39101+ 1 CC To Mr.M.Sriram, Advocate SR NO.39431 Common Order in W.P. No. 3028 of 2007TS {CO}TP/29.8.08