The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed a ruling by the Madras High Court that annulled the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to judges, due to alleged procedural irregularities. This decision came during a session on Monday, where a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta considered an appeal from nine of the appointees challenging the High Court’s decision dated July 1, 2024, in the case of K Vedhambika and others v. Registrar General and others.
Initially, the Madras High Court had declared the recruitment process invalid, citing a violation of Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015. The rule breach allegedly occurred when candidates who did not meet the necessary qualifications were permitted to apply, with allowances made for them to meet the qualifications post-appointment. The High Court criticized this leniency, emphasizing that such actions compromised the principles of equality and fairness.
The recruitment process, which commenced with revised guidelines on May 25, 2023, involved a circular issued on June 7, 2023, inviting applications from current High Court staff. An office memorandum dated August 4, 2023, confirmed the selection of 17 candidates. However, in February 2024, the High Court took suo motu cognizance of alleged discrepancies in the selection procedure. A Bench led by Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar eventually nullified the appointments.
The High Court found several issues, including the participation of over-aged and under-qualified candidates and the conditional appointment of individuals who had not yet passed the required skill tests. Moreover, some candidates were given two years to acquire the Senior Grade qualification in English shorthand. There were additional concerns about alleged improprieties during the transcription test, with reports suggesting that an Assistant Registrar may have assisted some candidates.
Critically, the High Court ruling noted that restricting the application process to in-service candidates, without opening it to external applicants, violated equal opportunity principles. It instructed the Registry to restart the selection process, ensuring compliance with the established rules.
More Read
In their appeal, the petitioners contended that the High Court overlooked the authority vested in the Chief Justice under Rule 28 of the 2015 Rules, which allows for the relaxation of eligibility criteria in certain situations. They argued that the then acting Chief Justice had conditionally relaxed these criteria due to a pressing need for Personal Assistants, with the stipulation that appointees should fulfill the qualifications within two years to avoid reversion to their original posts.
The petitioners asserted that they have since met the necessary qualifications and continue to perform their duties. They also questioned the High Court’s use of suo motu jurisdiction in this service matter, given that no unsuccessful candidate or aggrieved party had contested the appointments.
The Supreme Court’s interim order allows the appointees to retain their positions for the time being, pending further review. The petitioners are represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, alongside advocates Sharath Chandran, Shyam Gopal, Divya Narayanan, Suvin Kumaran, and P Krishnadevan.
