Madras High Court sets aside appointment of 17 personal assistants to its judges
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) set aside the appointment of 17 persons to the post of Personal Assistant (P.A.) to its
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) set aside the appointment of 17 persons to the post of Personal Assistant (P.A.) to its judges in 2023 after finding several “illegalities, irregularities and unnecessary relaxations” having been given to the in-service candidates thereby not letting anyone to be appointed through direct recruitment. Second Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam Senthilkumar passed the orders while allowing a suo motu writ petition taken up by the court in 2024 to test the validity of the selection process of the 17 individuals. The judges held relaxation of recruitment rules made in favour of the in-service candidates was “unnecessary and unwarranted.” The Bench said, appointment of PAs to the judges of the court was governed by Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015 which categorically states selection should be based on merit. The Rule also states if the vacancies could not be filled up through ‘recruitment by transfer’ from among in-service candidates, they should be filled up through direct recruitment.
Further, Rule 14A(b) specifically mandates the candidates must have passed the Government Technical Examination in shorthand and typewriting in English higher grade. On the contrary, a circular issued by the High Court Registry on June 7, 2023 had relaxed the rule for in-service candidates and permitted even those who had passed only junior/intermediate grade to participate in the selection process. The circular stated the selected candidates must give an undertaking that they would pass higher grade examinations within two years of their appointment. “This circular has resorted to providing an unjustified grace period, which is clearly contradictory to the said Rule. This sends a wrong signal to all potential candidates and directly infringes upon the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the Bench wrote. The judges also observed relaxation of a recruitment rule through a circular, issued for inviting applications, smacked of arbitrariness. “Technical qualification in shorthand and typewriting in English – Higher Grade is a basic qualification for the post of P.A. to judges.
Relaxing such a vital condition through a circular, without valid reasoning, can unjustly enrich unqualified candidates, thereby tilting a level playing field,” they added. Authoring the verdict, Justice Subramaniam said, candidates who were over aged and under qualified were also permitted to participate in the selection process “in serious transgression of the service rules.” The Bench was shocked to learn that in-service candidates who could not even clear the skill test had been appointed and had been given a grace period of one year, after the appointment, to clear the test. The court said, it was “absurd” to have appointed individuals who had scored zero marks in the transcription paper they had to write as part of the skill test. “This reveals serious discrepancies and violations in the selection process. This shows that the selection itself is anti-thesis to merit,” the Bench said before asking the Registry to hold a fresh recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.
The BriefWire