SC declines urgent hearing on plea against Madras HC order to quash appointment of personal assistant judges

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a part-time Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nag by Sr. Advocate S. Nagamuthu. Photo file | Photo credit: PTI

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 2, 2026) refused to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the Madras High Court’s order quashing the appointment of 17 personal assistants (PAs) to high court judges after it found several “illegalities, irregularities and unnecessary relaxations” in the recruitment process.

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a part-time Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nag by Sr. Advocate S. Nagamuthu. However, the Bench dismissed the application. “Not tomorrow,” Judge Sundresh remarked.

The High Court passed an order in a suo motu case initiated in 2024 to appoint a PA. The recruitment process was found to have violated Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, which prescribes the passing of higher level examinations in English Shorthand and Typing as the basic qualification for appointment as a PA.

The court pointed out that several job applicants who did not have the prescribed qualifications were nevertheless appointed and given a grace period of one year to obtain them. He held that such relaxation, introduced through the recruitment notice itself, in effect denied equal opportunities to other eligible applicants.

“It sends a wrong signal to all potential candidates and directly violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Relaxing the rule through a circular invitation even before appointment undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness,” the high court said in its order.

A bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar held that the relaxation of the basic eligibility condition without any valid justification tilted the level playing field in favor of ineligible candidates and amounted to serious violation of service rules.

“Technical qualification in English Shorthand and Typing – Higher Degree is the essential qualification for the post of Judicial Personal Assistants. Relaxation of such a vital condition through a circular, without valid justification, may unjustly enrich unqualified candidates and thereby tilt the playing field,” the Bench said.

The High Court also rejected the request of counsel for 17 persons, except one person who returned to the Typist position during the hearing of the case, to allow them to serve as PAs to the judges as they had acquired the necessary qualifications in the last three years.

“If the illegalities are cured, it will result in violation of the rights of other employees who are all equal and aspire to the post of Personal Assistants of Hon’ble Judges. Besides, it will set a bad precedent,” the Bench concluded.

Published – 03 Jul 2026 01:15 IST