Supreme Court Declines Urgent Listing Of Plea Against Madras High Court Order Setting Aside Recruitment Of 17 PAs To Judges

The Supreme Court today declined urgent listing of a plea challenging the Madras High Court order which set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges. The High Court had held that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit.

The matter was mentioned before a partial Court working days bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu by Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu. The senior counsel sought listing of the matter tomorrow, contending that High Court is likely to suffer due to the setting aside of appointments of 23 PAs.

"Not tomorrow," Justice Sundresh said in response.

In the impugned order, the High Court dealt with a suo motu writ petition taken up by it with reference to the alleged irregularities in the process of selection of PA to Judges of the Madras High Court.

On June 7, 2023, applications were invited for selection to the post of PA to Judges from staff members working in the cadre of 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, Xerox Operator.

As per the eligibility criteria mentioned in Rule 14 A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, the candidates must have passed the Government Technical Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting in English Higher Grade.

However, the circular stated that individuals with lesser qualifications, such as Junior/Intermediate Grade in Shorthand or Typewriting, may be absorbed into the post of PA to Judges on the undertaking that they will acquire the requisite technical qualification within a stipulated period (ie 2 years from the date of appointment).

The Court noted that this circular was contrary to the service Rules as it provided an unjustified extra grace period to candidates with lesser qualifications. It observed that this was against the principle of Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court further remarked that any relaxation of a rule through a circular inviting applications, even before the appointment, undermined the principle of equality and smacked of arbitrariness.

It also stated that the requirement of having Shorthand and Typewriting qualification in English was a basic requirement for a PA and relaxing such a vital condition through a circular without valid reasoning could unjustly enrich the unqualified candidates.

On perusing the documents with respect to the recruitment, the court noted that candidates who did not possess the qualification, were over-aged, or under-qualified were permitted to take part in the selection process.

It also rejected the argument that the candidates be permitted to continue in their post since they had acquired the requisite qualification during the pendency of the proceedings. The court further said that several other employees would have also acquired the requisite qualification and it was necessary to ensure equal opportunity by permitting such candidates to participate in the selection process.

Noting that the service Rules were relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of resorting to direct recruitment, the Court said that it would send a wrong message to the public, especially since the Rules clearly provided for direct recruitment in case the in-service candidates did not qualify.

Consequently, the Court set aside the appointment and gave liberty to the High Court to conduct fresh selection.