Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order Quashing Appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to Judges
The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the Madras High Court’s judgment that had quashed the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to judges, granting interim relief to nine of the affected appointees who challenged the decision. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the special leave petition and ordered that the High Court’s July 1 judgment would remain stayed until further consideration of the case.
The controversy arose after a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held that the entire recruitment process was arbitrary and contrary to the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015. The High Court found that the prescribed eligibility criteria had been relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the mandatory qualifications in English shorthand and typewriting, instead of resorting to direct recruitment as envisaged under the Rules. It consequently set aside the appointments of all 17 Personal Assistants and permitted the High Court administration to conduct a fresh selection process.
Before the Supreme Court, the affected appointees argued that the High Court’s decision had abruptly terminated their appointments despite their having served in the posts. Accepting the plea for interim protection, the apex court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment while issuing notice to the respondents, making it clear that the appointments would continue until further orders.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also observed that several other in-service employees may have since acquired the requisite qualifications and that any future recruitment exercise should ensure equal opportunity for all eligible candidates. The Bench indicated that these aspects would require detailed examination when the matter is heard on merits.
The High Court’s original judgment had strongly criticised the recruitment process, observing that relaxing statutory eligibility norms for a select group of candidates undermined the principle of merit-based selection. It had noted that permitting candidates who lacked the prescribed qualifications to participate, with an assurance that they could acquire the qualifications later, was inconsistent with the service rules and sent an undesirable message regarding public recruitment.
With the Supreme Court’s interim order, the appointments of the 17 Personal Assistants will continue pending adjudication of the appeals. The case is expected to address broader questions concerning the scope of judicial review over recruitment conducted by constitutional courts, the extent to which statutory service rules can be relaxed, and the balance between administrative discretion and adherence to prescribed eligibility norms in public employment.
