The Supreme Court on Monday, 13 July stayed the operation of a Madras High Court judgment that had quashed the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to its judges, following findings of alleged irregularities in the selection process. The apex court's intervention puts the High Court's order on hold pending further hearing.

Supreme Court Issues Notice, Grants Interim Stay

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the 1 July judgment of the Madras High Court. The bench granted an interim stay on the impugned judgment and directed that notice be made returnable in four weeks. According to case records on the Supreme Court's official website, the matter is likely to be listed for hearing on 14 August.

What the Madras High Court Had Found

The now-stayed judgment was passed by a division bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar in a suo motu writ petition. The High Court had held that the recruitment process suffered from multiple illegalities, specifically that a circular governing the selection diluted the eligibility conditions prescribed under Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015.

The bench had observed that permitting candidates without the prescribed Higher Grade qualification in English shorthand and typewriting to participate — and granting them two years to acquire the qualification after selection — was contrary to statutory rules. 'This circular, per se runs contrary to Rule 14A,' the High Court had noted, adding that 'relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness.'

Allegations of Irregularities During Skill Test

The Madras High Court's judgment went further, flagging alleged irregularities during the skill test itself. Official records cited by the court indicated that CCTV footage appeared to show an Assistant Registrar interacting with certain candidates during the transcription test, 'which seems that he would have helped the candidates for transcription.' The court also noted that candidates who secured zero marks in transcription were selected for the post of PA to judges, with the bench observing that such discrepancies revealed 'selection itself is anti-thesis to merit.'

The division bench had described the deviations as a 'serious transgression of service rules', holding that the selection process was 'tainted with arbitrariness' and that 'standards of merit have not been given enough weightage.'

What the High Court Had Directed

Setting aside the appointments made pursuant to the 7 June 2023 circular and the 4 August 2023 appointment order, the Madras High Court had granted liberty to the Registry to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the Rules 'as expeditiously as possible.' It had rejected the argument that selected candidates had since acquired the requisite qualifications, holding that permitting them to continue would prejudice other eligible employees and set a 'wrong precedent.'

What Happens Next

With the Supreme Court's stay now in place, the 17 appointed PAs can continue in their posts until the matter is resolved. The next hearing is expected on 14 August, when the court will examine the merits of the SLP. The case raises broader questions about the limits of administrative circulars in modifying statutory service rules — a recurring tension in High Court recruitment disputes across India.