Madras: Supreme Court on Thursday declined an urgent hearing of a plea challenging the Madras High Court’s decision that cancelled the recruitment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to Judges. The case relates to alleged irregularities in the recruitment process and relaxation of eligibility rules. The top court did not agree to list the matter urgently during the partial court working days.
Madras 17 PA Recruitment Controversy: Supreme Court Declines Urgent Listing
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu heard the matter after it was mentioned by Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu. The lawyer requested that the case be listed urgently, arguing that the Madras High Court could face administrative difficulties because the appointments had been cancelled. However, Justice Sundresh briefly responded, “Not tomorrow,” declining the request for immediate listing.
Read also: Madras High Court Orders Tamil Nadu to Submit District-Wise POCSO Court Status Report
Why Did the Madras High Court Cancel the Recruitment
The Madras High Court had earlier set aside the appointments of 17 Personal Assistants to Judges after examining the recruitment process through a suo motu writ petition.
The court found that the selection process was arbitrary, unfair, and not based on merit. It also observed that candidates who did not meet the required qualifications were allowed to participate in the recruitment.
Madras 17 PA Recruitment Controversy: What Were the Eligibility Rules
Under Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, candidates applying for the post were required to pass the Government Technical Examination in English Higher Grade Shorthand and Typewriting. However, a recruitment circular allowed candidates with lower qualifications to apply, provided they obtained the required qualification within two years after appointment.
The High Court ruled that this relaxation was against the service rules and could not override statutory eligibility conditions.
Court Said Relaxation Violated Equality
The High Court observed that relaxing essential qualifications through an administrative circular violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the judgment, allowing under-qualified candidates to compete gave them an unfair advantage over eligible candidates and weakened the merit-based selection process.
Madras 17 PA Recruitment Controversy: Other Irregularities Found
The court also found that:
- Over-aged candidates were allowed to participate.
- Under-qualified candidates appeared in the selection process.
- Some selected candidates reportedly secured extremely poor performance in skill tests.
- The recruitment process failed to follow the prescribed service rules.
Madras 17 PA Recruitment Controversy: Fresh Recruitment Allowed
After cancelling the appointments, the Madras High Court gave the administration the liberty to conduct a fresh recruitment process strictly in accordance with the service rules and merit-based selection.
Read also: Madras High Court Questions PIL Challenging Promotion of 7 IAS Officers to Chief Secretary Grade
