Supreme Court stays Madras High Court order cancelling appointment of 17 PAs to judges

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had cancelled the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to High Court judges over alleged irregularities in their selection process [K Vedhambika and others v. Registrar General and others].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted the interim relief in an appeal filed by nine of the affected appointees against the High Court’s July 1 judgment.

The High Court had held that the recruitment process violated Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, since candidates who lacked the prescribed qualifications were permitted to participate and were later granted time to become eligible.

“Relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness,” the High Court said.

The recruitment process began with revised guidelines issued on May 25, 2023. A circular dated June 7, 2023 invited applications from existing High Court staff for appointment as PAs to judges. Seventeen candidates were subsequently selected through an office memorandum issued on August 4, 2023.

The High Court took suo motu cognisance of alleged irregularities in the appointments in February 2024. A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar eventually set aside the entire selection.

The High Court found that over-aged and under-qualified candidates had been allowed to participate. Some candidates who had not cleared the requisite skill test were appointed subject to the condition that they pass it later. Others were given two years to obtain the Senior Grade qualification in English shorthand.

The judgment also referred to a communication alleging that an Assistant Registrar at the Madurai Bench had interacted with and possibly assisted some candidates during the transcription test. It further noted that candidates who scored zero in transcription had nevertheless been selected.

The High Court concluded that permitting only in-service candidates to participate, without opening the remaining vacancies to direct recruitment, denied an equal opportunity to eligible candidates from the open pool. It allowed the Registry to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the rules.

In their appeal, the petitioners argued that the High Court had overlooked the power of the Chief Justice under Rule 28 of the 2015 Rules to relax eligibility conditions in individual cases.

They said the then acting Chief Justice had granted a conditional relaxation to address an acute shortage of PAs. The appointees were required to acquire the prescribed qualifications within two years or face reversion to their parent posts.

The petitioners claimed that they had since acquired the requisite qualifications and were continuing to discharge their duties. They also questioned the High Court’s use of suo motu jurisdiction in a service matter when no unsuccessful candidate or other aggrieved person had challenged the appointments.

The Supreme Court’s interim stay permits the appointees to continue for the time being.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and advocates Sharath Chandran, Shyam Gopal, Divya Narayanan, Suvin Kumaran and P Krishnadevan.