Recruitment Under Review: Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to 17 Judicial Personal Assistants

The Supreme Court of India has provided a significant reprieve to 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) appointed to the Madras High Court, placing a temporary hold on a judgment that had previously declared their selection process void. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued an order staying the operation of the High Court’s July 1 verdict, which had sparked a major administrative controversy.

From Administrative Appointment to Suo Motu Scrutiny The dispute originated from a June 7, 2023, circular inviting in-service staff to apply for the post of Personal Assistant to Judges. Seeking to address an acute vacancy crisis, the High Court’s administration permitted candidates who lacked certain prescribed qualifications—specifically in Higher Grade Shorthand and Typewriting—to apply, provided they cleared these requirements within two years.

However, in February 2024, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, led by Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar, took suo motu cognizance of alleged irregularities in the recruitment. The High Court’s subsequent judgment did not mince words, labeling the appointment process as "tainted with arbitrariness" and noting that candidates were selected despite failing skill tests or lacking basic technical requirements.

Arguments in the Apex Court Challenging this decision, the affected appointees approached the Supreme Court, represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu. The appellants argued that the Madras High Court failed to account for the discretionary powers of the Chief Justice under Rule 28 of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015 , which allows for the relaxation of eligibility conditions in deserving cases.

Furthermore, the appellants underscored that they had successfully acquired the necessary technical qualifications during the pendency of the proceedings, effectively fulfilling the conditions set out in the original circular. They also raised questions regarding the judicial propriety of initiated suo motu proceedings in a service matter where no aggrieved party had originally stepped forward to challenge the appointments.

Key Observations: The High Court's Stance Prior to the Supreme Court's stay, the High Court’s judgment firmly rejected the practice of lowering standards through circulars. The bench had noted:

  • "This circular, per se runs contrary to Rule 14A ."
  • "Relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness."
  • "The standards of merit have not been given enough weightage."
  • "Permitting them to continue would prejudice other eligible employees and create a wrong precedent."

A Temporary Stay The Supreme Court, while maintaining a neutral stance on the merits of the recruitment process, has issued a notice returnable within four weeks. By granting an interim stay on the High Court’s order, the Justices have ensured that the 17 Personal Assistants can continue in their roles while the matter undergoes deeper judicial scrutiny.

For now, the legal battle shifts to the question of whether administrative flexibility can supersede strict adherence to recruitment rules, a defining issue for future government service appointments across the country. The matter is currently scheduled for further consideration in mid-August.