Back
Quashes Appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to Judges Due to Arbitrary Recruitment Process
In a significant verdict emphasizing the sanctity of in public employment, the has invalidated the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to its judges. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar, delivered the order after identifying a pattern of that violated the High Court’s own .
Background and Procedural Lapses The recruitment process in question stemmed from a circular issued on , which invited applications for the post of PAs from existing staff members. Rule 14A of the Service Rules, 2015 , which governs these appointments, explicitly mandates that candidates must possess a Government Technical Examination certificate in English Shorthand and Typewriting (Higher Grade).
However, the Court discovered that the selection process drifted significantly from these . Applicants who did not hold the prescribed Higher Grade qualifications were permitted to participate under an "informal" arrangement that granted them a two-year grace period to acquire the certifications post-appointment. The Bench observed that this deviation was not only unauthorized but also created an uneven playing field for other potential candidates from the open pool.
Findings of Irrationality and Lack of Merit The Court’s scrutiny uncovered deeper issues beyond mere rule relaxation. Examination of files revealed that the selection process was marked by extreme lack of transparency. The Bench noted that even individuals with insufficient performance in mandatory skill tests were selected, with some candidates scoring zero in transcription and yet being appointed.
The Bench further scrutinized evidence from a surveillance investigation, noting that during the skill test conducted on
, at the
, there were allegations of assistance provided by officials to candidates. The Court remarked,
"The CCTV footage shows Thiru. S. Muthusubramanian interacting with 2 or 3 candidates... which seems that he would have helped them for transcription."
Key Observations The High Court emphasized that service rules are not suggestions but binding mandates to ensure fairness. In its judgment, the Bench observed:
-
"Relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the and smacks of ."
-
"The nature of selection process itself is tainted with and deserves to be set aside. It can be seen clearly that standards of merit have not been given enough weightage."
-
"Candidates who have not even passed the skill test were appointed and given a grace period to clear the test. This negates the very object of conducting a skill test and selection based on merit."
Impact and Next Steps The Court has set aside the appointments of all 17 individuals made pursuant to the circular dated , and the subsequent memorandum dated . While counsel for the respondents argued that many of these employees had acquired the necessary qualifications during the pendency of the litigation, the Court remained firm, noting that allowing illegalities to persist would set a dangerous precedent for systemic recruitment.
The High Court has now granted the administration the liberty to initiate a fresh, transparent selection process, strictly compliant with the constitutional standards of equality and the specific merits prescribed under Rule 14A. Following this decision, a move to seek urgent intervention at the was also declined, reinforcing the finality of the High Court’s stance on upholding administrative discipline.
