The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside the appointments of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to its judges after finding that the recruitment process violated the court's own service rules [Suo-motu Writ Petition v Registrar General, Madras High Court & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar held that the entire selection process conducted pursuant to a June 7, 2023, circular was arbitrary and contrary to Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules.
It observed that the rules had been violated by allowing ineligible candidates to compete, relaxing essential qualifications after selection, and shutting out eligible candidates from the open market.
On the manner in which the appointments were made, the Court observed,
"The nature of selection process itself is tainted with arbitrariness and deserves to be set aside. It can be seen clearly that standards of merit have not been given enough weightage."
The case arose from a suo motu petition initiated by the High Court to examine the 2023 recruitment process for the post of personal assistants to judges. Under Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, candidates are required to possess higher grade qualifications in English shorthand and typewriting, among other prescribed qualifications.
However, the recruitment circular permitted candidates with lower technical qualifications to apply, provided they acquired the required qualifications within two years of appointment.
The Court held that such relaxation was impermissible because the statutory rules did not authorise it.
"This sends a wrong signal to all the potential candidates and is directly infringing upon the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relaxation of a rule through a circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness," it said.
The Court further noted that candidates who were ineligible under the prescribed rules were still selected, with the deficiency in their qualifications allowed to be rectified after their appointment.
"This is unnecessary and traverses beyond the well established principles of service jurisprudence. It also strikes at the heart of inequality as only in-service candidates are given an undue advantage here and potential candidates from open pool were not even permitted to take part in the recruitment process, inspite of Rule 14A prescribing their participation," observed the Court.
Apart from eligibility issues, the Bench found serious flaws in the conduct of the recruitment itself. It noted that some selected candidates were appointed subject to their clearing a mandatory skill test one year later, even though passing the test was the basis for selection.
Calling the arrangement indefensible, the Court remarked,
"This is absurd as selection process is based on passing the skill test only. But candidates who have not even passed the skill test were appointed and given a grace period to clear the test. This negates the very object of conducting a skill test and selection based on merit."
The Court referred to official records indicating irregularities during the skill test at the Madurai Bench. Additionally, it noted that some selected candidates had scored zero marks in the transcription component but were nevertheless appointed.
Though some appointees had since acquired the required qualifications during the pendency of the case, the Bench held that permitting them to continue would unfairly disadvantage other employees who had also become eligible in the meantime.
It consequently quashed all 17 appointments made pursuant to the 2023 recruitment and permitted the High Court Registry to undertake a fresh selection process in accordance with the service rules.
Advocate B Vijay appeared for the Registrar General of the Madras High Court.
Senior Advocate PS Raman, along with advocates C Vigneswaran and P Vasanthakumar appeared for the other respondents.
[Read Judgment]