https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-17-judges-pa-recruitment-set-aside-arbitrary-539482 [01/07, 17:53] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges, after noting that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288] The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the service Rules were relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of resorting to direct recruitment.

[01/07, 17:53] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-17-judges-pa-recruitment-set-aside-arbitrary-539482
[01/07, 17:53] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges, after noting that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the service Rules were relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of resorting to direct recruitment.

The court remarked that this would send a wrong message to the public, especially when the Rules clearly provide for direct recruitment in case the in-service candidates did not qualify for recruitment.

“ The object of the entire selection process is pedestalled on merit. By allowing only the in-service candidates to participate in the selection process, it can pave a way for a scenario of cloaked embargo being imposed on other eligible direct candidates from the open pool. This can send a wrong message to the public at large, and more so, when the Rules clearly stipulate that in case requisite number of in-service candidates do not qualify, then selection must be made through direct recruitment. Instead, resorting to such Rule relaxations is unwarranted and unnecessary under the given circumstances,” the court observed.
The court noted that as per the Rules, if the posts could not be filled through in-service candidates, the selection could be made through direct recruitment by opening the gates for potential candidates from the open pool. However, in the present case, the court noted that unqualified candidates were selected and relaxation was granted to cure the ineligibility. The court thus held that the selection process itself was tainted with arbitrariness and deserved to be set aside.

“ in the present case, candidates with lesser qualification than what is prescribed in the circular were allowed to participate in the recruitment process. On top of that, they were selected and relaxation was granted to cure their ineligibility. 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. So 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 court said.
The court also noted that even candidates who had received ‘zero marks’ in transcription were selected to the post. The court added that the evaluation chart revealed that the number of mistakes in transcription was numerous and beyond the permitted limit of 150 mistakes prescribed for the Senior Grade. The court thus observed that there was serious discrepancies and violations in the selection process and the selection itself was anti-thesis to merit.

The court was dealing with a suo motu writ petition taken up by it with reference to the alleged irregularities in the process of selection of PA to Judges of the Madras High Court.

On June 7, 2023, applications were invited for selection to the post of PA to Judges from staff members working in the cadre of Technical Assistant to Librarian, Assistant Section Officers including Translators and Assistant Court Fee Examiners, Personal Assistant (to the Registrars), Senior Typist, Computer Operator, Personal Clerk (to the Deputy Registrars), Assistant, Typist, Reader/Examiner, Telephone Operator, Cashier, Xerox Operator.

As per the eligibility criteria mentioned in Rule 14 A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, the candidates must have passed the Government Technical Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting in English Higher Grade.

However, the circular stated that individuals with lesser qualifications, such as Junior/Intermediate Grade in Shorthand or Typewriting, may be absorbed into the post of P.A. to Judges on the undertaking that they will acquire the requisite technical qualification within a stipulated period (i.e) two years from the date of appointment.

The court noted that this circular was contrary to the service Rules as it provided an unjustified extra grace period to candidates with lesser qualifications. The court noted that this was against the principle of Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court further remarked that any relaxation of a rule through a circular inviting applications, even before the appointment, undermined the principle of equality and smacked of arbitrariness.

The court also added that the requirement of having Shorthand and Typewriting qualification in English was a basic requirement for a PA and relaxing such a vital condition through a circular without valid reasoning could unjustly enrich the unqualified candidates.

On perusing the documents with respect to the recruitment, the court also noted that candidates who did not possess the qualification, were over-aged, or under-qualified were permitted to take part in the selection process.

The court also rejected the argument that the candidates be permitted to continue in their post since they had acquired the requisite qualification during the pendency of the proceedings. The court noted that several other employees would have also acquired the requisite qualification and it was necessary to ensure equal opportunity by permitting such candidates to participate in the selection process.

Thus, the court set aside the appointment and gave liberty to the High Court to conduct fresh selection.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. B. Vijay, Mr. P. S. Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Vigneswaran and Mr. P. Vasanthakumar

Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

Case No: WP No. 5497 of 2024