SC refuses urgent hearing on plea against Madras HC order quashing appointment of personal assistants to judges

Published 2 July 2026 · general

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 2, 2026) declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging a Madras High Court order setting aside

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 2, 2026) declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging a Madras High Court order setting aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to High Court judges after finding several “illegalities, irregularities and unnecessary relaxations” in the recruitment process. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a partial working days Bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu by senior advocate S. Nagamuthu. The Bench, however, declined the request. “Not tomorrow,” Justice Sundresh observed. The High Court had passed the order in a suo motu case initiated in 2024 on the appointment of the PAs. It found that the recruitment process violated Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, which prescribes passing the Higher Grade examinations in English shorthand and typewriting as an essential qualification for appointment as a PA.

The court had pointed out that several in-service candidates who did not possess the prescribed qualifications were nevertheless appointed and granted a one-year grace period to acquire them. It had held that such relaxation, introduced through the recruitment notification itself, effectively denied equal opportunity to other eligible candidates. “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. Relaxation of a rule through a circular inviting application even before appointment undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness,” the High Court had said in its order. A Bench comprising Justices S. M. Subramaniam and N.

Senthilkumar had held that relaxing an essential eligibility condition without any valid justification tilted the level playing field in favour of ineligible candidates and amounted to a serious breach of the service rules. “Technical qualification in shorthand and typewriting in English – Higher Grade is a basic qualification for the post of Personal Assistants to judges. Relaxing such a vital condition through a circular, without valid reasoning, can unjustly enrich unqualified candidates, thereby tilting a level playing field”, the Bench had said. The High Court had also rejected a request made by the counsel for the 17 persons, barring one individual who had reverted to the post of Typist during the pendency of the case, to permit them to serve as PAs to the judges since they had acquired necessary qualifications in the last three years.