The Madras High Court has set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to its judges after finding serious irregularities in the recruitment process. In a suo motu writ petition, a Division Bench held that the selection departed from the mandatory service rules by permitting ineligible candidates to participate and granting relaxations that were not contemplated under the Rules.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a suo motu proceeding initiated by the High Court over alleged irregularities in the 2023 recruitment process for the post of Personal Assistant to Hon'ble Judges. The challenge focused on the validity of the selection conducted pursuant to a circular dated June 7, 2023, and the appointments made thereafter.
The Bench examined Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, which prescribes the qualifications and mode of appointment. The Rule requires candidates to possess Higher Grade qualifications in English Shorthand and Typewriting and provides that appointments should be made on merit through recruitment by transfer, with direct recruitment to fill any remaining vacancies if sufficient eligible in-service candidates are unavailable.
Court's Observations
The Court found that the recruitment circular diluted the mandatory eligibility conditions by allowing candidates with lower qualifications to participate, subject to an undertaking that they would obtain the required qualifications within two years. According to the Bench, such relaxation was contrary to Rule 14A.
The Bench observed,
“Relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness.”
The judges further noted that technical qualifications in English Shorthand and Typewriting were basic eligibility requirements and could not be relaxed merely through an administrative circular. The Court also recorded that some candidates who were overage or otherwise ineligible had been permitted to participate in the recruitment process.
The Bench was also critical of the decision to appoint certain candidates first and allow them to clear the prescribed skill test later.
The Bench observed,
"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."
Irregularities in Skill Test
While examining the recruitment records, the Court referred to official correspondence indicating that CCTV footage from the Madurai Bench appeared to show an Assistant Registrar interacting with candidates during the skill test, raising concerns over the fairness of the examination process.
The Court also noted that the evaluation chart showed several selected candidates had secured zero marks in the transcription component of the skill test, yet were still selected. It found that the number of transcription mistakes recorded in some cases far exceeded the permissible limit, indicating significant discrepancies in the assessment process.
When the selected candidates argued that they had since acquired the required qualifications during the pendency of the proceedings, the Court declined to accept the submission. It held that allowing later-acquired qualifications to validate an otherwise defective recruitment would prejudice other eligible employees who had become qualified in the meantime and would create an undesirable precedent.
Decision
Allowing the suo motu writ petition, the Division Bench set aside the selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 18 as Personal Assistants to Hon'ble Judges made pursuant to the June 7, 2023 recruitment circular and the appointment order dated August 4, 2023.
The Court granted liberty to the High Court administration to conduct a fresh recruitment strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules and prescribed procedure.
-300x169.webp)
 Department-300x169.webp)
