The Supreme Court on Thursday declined an urgent listing of a petition challenging the Madras High Court judgment that set aside the appointments of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to High Court judges.
The matter was mentioned before a partial court working day Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu by Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu. The Senior Counsel sought listing of the matter on July 3 on the grounds that the functioning of the High Court would be adversely affected after the appointments of several PAs were quashed.
The Apex Court, however, refused to list the case for hearing on Friday.
The impugned judgment arose from a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Madras High Court concerning alleged irregularities in the selection process for the post of Personal Assistants (PAs) to judges of the High Court.
On June 7, 2023, applications were invited from staff members working in various cadres, including Technical Assistant to Librarian, Assistant Section Officers, Translators, Assistant Court Fee Examiners, Personal Assistant to Registrars, Senior Typists, Computer Operators, Personal Clerks to Deputy Registrars, Assistants, Typists, Reader/Examiners, Telephone Operators, Cashiers and Xerox Operators.
Under Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, candidates were required to clear the Government Technical Examination in English Shorthand and Typewriting at the Higher Grade level.
However, the recruitment circular stated that candidates possessing only Junior or Intermediate Grade qualifications in shorthand or typewriting could also be appointed, subject to an undertaking that they would acquire the requisite qualification within two years from the date of appointment.
The High Court found that the circular was contrary to the statutory service rules and unjustifiably granted an additional grace period to under-qualified candidates. According to the Court, such relaxation violated the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
It observed that relaxing eligibility conditions through a recruitment circular, even before appointments were made, undermined fairness and reflected arbitrariness.
The High Court further noted that proficiency in English shorthand and typewriting was a fundamental requirement for the post of Personal Assistant, and relaxing such an essential condition without adequate justification unfairly benefitted ineligible candidates. Upon examining the recruitment records, it was found that candidates lacking the prescribed qualifications, over-aged applicants, and under-qualified persons had been allowed to participate in the selection process.
The High Court also rejected the argument that the selected candidates should be allowed to continue because they had obtained the required qualifications during the pendency of the proceedings. It observed that several other employees may also have acquired the necessary qualifications during the same period, noting that fairness required that all such eligible candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate in a fresh selection process.
Relaxing the service rules merely to accommodate in-service candidates who lacked the prescribed qualifications, instead of resorting to direct recruitment as contemplated under the rules, would send a wrong message to the public, noted the High Court, and set aside the appointments. it further ordered a fresh recruitment process in accordance with the applicable rules.
The post Supreme Court declines urgent hearing on plea challenging Madras High Court verdict in PA recruitment case appeared first on India Legal.