CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside its own selection and appointment of 17 personal assistants (PAs) to judges of the court for not adhering to rules and throwing the eligibility criteria to the wind.
A division bench of justices S M Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar passed the orders on a suo motu case initiated by the court in 2024 on the appointment of the PAs.
Stating that Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, specifically prescribes clearing tests in shorthand and English typewriting (higher grade) an eligibility criterion, the bench noted the recruitment was made in violation of this by appointing ineligible candidates and giving them one year’s grace period for acquiring such skills.
“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 bench said in the order.
It remarked that relaxing such a vital condition without valid reasoning is tilting the level-playing field and that these were serious transgression of service rules. Such relaxation is unnecessary and traverses beyond the well-established principles of service jurisprudence, the bench added.
Ruing over denial of opportunity to open pool candidates, it said, “The nature of the selection process itself is tainted with arbitrariness and deserves to be set aside.”
Further, the bench called the grace period given to the candidates to acquire the skills within a year from appointment as “absurd”, adding that it “negates the very object of conducting a skill test and selection based on merit”.
The bench also refused to permit the PAs to continue in service although they acquired the requisite skills during the pendency of the case, stating that if such illegalities are cured, it will result in infringement of the rights of other eligible staff, apart from creating a “wrong precedence”.
Further, by allowing only the in-service candidates to participate in the selection process, it can pave way for a scenario of cloaked embargo being imposed on other eligible candidates from the open pool, it said. This can send a wrong message to the public at large when the rules provide for recruiting candidates from the open pool if there are inadequate in-service candidates, it added. The bench set aside the appointment of the 17 PAs and directed the court’s administration to conduct selection afresh.