The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court’s order quashing the appointments of 17 Personal Assistants to High Court judges, granting interim protection to the appointees. The bench passed the interim order while hearing an appeal challenging the High Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court’s ruling that had set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to judges of the High Court.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted interim protection in an appeal filed by the individuals whose appointments had been challenged.
Earlier, on July 2, the Supreme Court had refused to list the plea on an urgent basis after senior advocate S Nagamuthu made an urgent mentioning request before a partial Court working days Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu.
The Madras High Court had concluded that the selection process was arbitrary and lacked proper assessment of merit. The Court observed that applicants who did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria were nevertheless permitted to take part and were ultimately selected. It further noted that relaxations were granted in a way that effectively cured their ineligibility.
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar held that the service rules had been relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not satisfy the required eligibility, rather than proceeding with direct recruitment in the manner contemplated by the rules.
As the High Court observed,
“Candidates who does not possess the requisite qualification of Senior Grade Shorthand (English) were permitted to participate in the selection process and were also subsequently selected. Thereafter, unnecessary relaxation was granted to them by giving them two years time to pass the shorthand test. These are serious transgression of service rules,”
The High Court also noted that even candidates who received “zero marks” in transcription were selected. It pointed out that the evaluation chart showed a high number of transcription errors many exceeding the limit of 150 mistakes allowed for the Senior Grade.
The High Court therefore concluded that there were serious inconsistencies and violations in the selection procedure, and that the selections themselves were contrary to the principle of merit.
In its reasoning, the Court stated that the purpose of the selection process is centered on merit, and warned that allowing only in-service candidates could potentially block eligible candidates from the open category.
The Court added that this could convey an incorrect message to the public particularly because the Rules specify that if an adequate number of in-service candidates do not qualify, recruitment must be done through direct recruitment.
In this context, the High Court viewed the use of Rule relaxations as unjustified,
“By allowing only the in-service candidates to participate in the selection process, it can pave a way for a scenario of cloaked embargo being imposed on other eligible direct candidates from the open pool. This can send a wrong message to the public at large, and more so, when the Rules clearly stipulate that in case requisite number of in-service candidates do not qualify, then selection must be made through direct recruitment. Instead, resorting to such Rule relaxations is unwarranted and unnecessary under the given circumstances.”
The High Court further referred to the recruitment timeline. Earlier, On June 7, 2023, applications were invited for the post of Personal Assistant (PA) to judges from employees working in multiple categories, including Technical Assistant to Librarian, Assistant Section Officers (including Translators and Assistant Court Fee Examiners), Personal Assistant (to the Registrars), Senior Typist, Computer Operator, Personal Clerk (to the Deputy Registrars), Assistant, Typist, Reader/Examiner, Telephone Operator, Cashier, and Xerox Operator.
According to the eligibility requirements under Rule 14 A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, candidates were required to have passed the Government Technical Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting in English at the Higher Grade level.
However, the recruitment circular indicated that individuals with lower qualifications such as Junior/Intermediate Grade in Shorthand or Typewriting could be absorbed into the PA posts based on an undertaking that they would obtain the required technical qualification within a specified period (i.e., two years from the date of appointment).
The High Court held that this circular conflicted with the service rules, since it provided an unreasonably extended grace period to candidates who did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria.