The Supreme Court of India on Monday put a temporary halt on a Madras High Court judgment that had annulled the appointments of 17 personal assistants assigned to High Court judges. The interim order allows the affected staff members to continue working in their respective roles for the time being.
A division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted the stay in response to an appeal filed by nine of the selected personal assistants. This petition challenges a July 1 ruling by a Madras High Court division bench, which had completely set aside the recruitment process.
High Court Invalidation And Irregularities
The High Court had previously invalidated the entire selection process, which began with revised guidelines in May 2023 and culminated in appointments in August 2023. Taking suo motu notice of the matter in February 2024, a bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar concluded that the recruitment violated Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015.
According to the High Court, the recruitment process allowed over-aged and under-qualified candidates to participate. The bench found that some candidates who had failed the mandatory skills assessment were conditionally hired, while others were given a two-year window to obtain senior-grade qualifications in English shorthand. The High Court also noted that relaxing eligibility rules through a circular prior to appointment compromised fair competition and equality.
Furthermore, the High Court’s judgment referred to allegations that an assistant registrar at the Madurai Bench had assisted candidates during the transcription examination, noting that some individuals who scored zero on the test were still selected. It also criticized the decision to restrict the recruitment exclusively to in-service candidates instead of opening the vacancies to the public, ordering the Registry to conduct a fresh selection process.
Appointees Argue Chief Justice Authority
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the nine petitioning personal assistants argued that the High Court failed to consider Rule 28 of the 2015 Service Rules. This rule empowers the Chief Justice to ease eligibility criteria in specific cases.
According to the appellants, the acting Chief Justice at the time relaxed the rules to resolve a critical shortage of personal assistants, on the condition that the appointees would either qualify within two years or face reversion to their original posts. The petitioners highlighted that they have since successfully acquired all the necessary qualifications and remain active in their duties. They also questioned the High Court’s decision to intervene on its own initiative in an employment dispute when no unsuccessful candidate or affected party had formally challenged the appointments.
