Madras High Court Quashes Appointment of 17 Personal Assistants for Flouting Recruitment Rules
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) quashed the appointment of 17 individuals as Personal Assistants (PAs) to its judges, citing multiple illegalities and irregularities in the selection process conducted in 2023.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar allowed a suo motu writ petition taken up in 2024 to examine the validity of the selections. The court found that unnecessary relaxations of recruitment rules were granted to in-service candidates, undermining the principle of merit-based selection.
The Bench noted that the appointment of PAs is governed by Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, which mandates selection based on merit. The rule requires that candidates must have passed the Government Technical Examination in shorthand and typewriting in English at higher grade. However, a circular issued on June 7, 2023, relaxed this requirement for in-service candidates, allowing those with only junior or intermediate grade to participate, with a promise to pass the higher grade within two years.
The court described this circular as "unjustified" and contradictory to the rules, stating that it infringed upon the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The judges observed that relaxing a vital technical qualification through a circular, without valid reasoning, could unjustly enrich unqualified candidates and tilt the level playing field.
Further irregularities included permitting over-aged and under-qualified candidates to participate, and appointing candidates who scored zero marks in the transcription paper of the skill test. The court termed this "absurd" and said it revealed serious discrepancies that made the selection process anti-thetical to merit.
The Bench rejected a request by the counsel for the 17 appointees (except one who had reverted to his previous post) to allow them to continue as they had since acquired the required qualifications. The court held that condoning such illegalities would infringe the rights of other eligible staff members and set a wrong precedent.
The court directed the High Court Registry to conduct a fresh recruitment process expeditiously.
