The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the operation of a Madras High Court judgment that had set aside the appointments of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to High Court judges over alleged irregularities in the recruitment process.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted interim relief to nine of the affected appointees who had challenged the Madras High Court’s July 1 verdict. The interim order allowed the appointees to continue in service pending further consideration of their appeal.
The controversy stemmed from a recruitment process initiated pursuant to revised guidelines issued on May 25, 2023. A circular dated June 7, 2023 invited applications from eligible in-service employees of the Madras High Court for appointment as Personal Assistants to judges. Following the selection process, 17 candidates were appointed through an office memorandum issued on August 4, 2023.
However, in February 2024, the Madras High Court took suo motu cognisance of allegations regarding irregularities in the appointments. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar subsequently quashed the entire selection process, holding that it violated Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015.
The High Court found that candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications and those who had crossed the upper age limit were allowed to participate in the recruitment process. It also noted that certain candidates who had failed to clear the mandatory skill test were appointed on the condition that they would qualify later, while others were granted two years to acquire the required Senior Grade qualification in English shorthand.
The judgment further referred to allegations that an Assistant Registrar at the Madurai Bench had interacted with and allegedly assisted certain candidates during the transcription test. It also noted that some candidates who had secured zero marks in the transcription component were nevertheless selected.
Holding that such relaxation of eligibility norms through a recruitment circular undermined the principles of equality and fairness, the High Court observed that allowing underqualified candidates to participate “smacks of arbitrariness”.
It also held that limiting the recruitment exclusively to in-service candidates, without opening the remaining vacancies to direct recruitment, deprived eligible candidates from the open market of an equal opportunity to compete. Consequently, it directed the Registry to conduct a fresh recruitment process strictly in accordance with the Service Rules.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the High Court had failed to consider the Chief Justice’s power under Rule 28 of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015 to relax eligibility conditions in deserving cases.
They submitted that the then Acting Chief Justice had exercised this power to address an acute shortage of Personal Assistants, granting only a conditional relaxation that required the selected candidates to acquire the prescribed qualifications within two years, failing which they would be reverted to their parent posts.
The appellants further contended that they have since acquired the requisite qualifications and continue to discharge their duties. They also questioned the High Court’s exercise of suo motu jurisdiction in a service matter when no unsuccessful candidate or other aggrieved person had challenged the appointments.
Accepting the plea for interim protection, the Apex Court stayed the operation of the Madras High Court’s verdict, allowing the appellants to continue in their posts until further orders.
The post Supreme Court stays Madras High Court order quashing appointment of 17 personal assistants to judges appeared first on India Legal.