Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14

"Relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling in July, 2026, set aside the selection and appointment of Personal Assistants to Hon'ble Judges, holding that the relaxation of mandatory technical qualifications through an administrative circular was a "serious transgression" of service rules.

A bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar observed that such relaxations tilt the level playing field and infringe upon the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The case originated from a Suo-motu Writ Petition initiated by a Division Bench following alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for Personal Assistants (PAs) to Judges as per a circular dated June 7, 2023. The Court scrutinized the selection of Respondents 2 to 18, noting that the recruitment process deviated significantly from the prescribed Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court Registry could relax the mandatory qualification of 'Higher Grade' in Shorthand and Typewriting prescribed under Rule 14-A via an administrative circular. The Court also examined whether the selection of candidates who secured zero marks in the transcription skill test and the alleged assistance provided to candidates during the test invalidated the entire process.

Circular Running Contrary To Statutory Rules

The Court noted that Rule 14-A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, specifically mandates that candidates must have passed the Government Technical Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting in English Higher Grade. However, the circular issued by the Registry allowed individuals with lesser qualifications, such as Junior or Intermediate Grade, to be absorbed on the condition that they acquire the requisite qualification within two years.

The Bench observed that this circular, per se, runs contrary to Rule 14-A and stated that the Registry should have confirmed to the established standards instead of providing an "unjustified extra grace period." The Court held that such a contradiction sends a wrong signal to potential candidates and directly infringes upon the principle of equality by unjustly enriching unqualified candidates.

"Relaxation of a Rule through a Circular inviting applications, even before appointment, undermines the principle of equality and smacks of arbitrariness."

Violation Of Article 14 And Merit-Based Selection

Emphasizing the importance of Article 14, the Court held that when rules for a post are clear, selection must be based strictly on merit. The Bench pointed out that if a requisite number of in-service candidates do not qualify based on the prescribed standards, the selection must then be made through a direct recruitment process from the open pool to ensure wide competition.

By allowing underqualified in-service candidates to participate and then granting them further relaxations to "cure their ineligibility," the Registry provided an undue advantage that potential candidates from the open pool were denied. The Court remarked that this process struck at the heart of inequality and was "tainted with arbitrariness," deserving to be set aside as standards of merit were not given enough weightage.

"Standards of merit have not been given enough weightage... the nature of selection process itself is tainted with arbitrariness."

Candidates With Zero Marks Selected For Appointment

Upon perusal of the evaluation charts, the Court expressed shock at finding that candidates who secured zero (0) marks in the transcription skill test were selected for the post of Personal Assistant. For instance, the Court highlighted the case of a candidate who secured zero marks in transcription and zero in shorthand outline, yet was appointed.

The Bench noted that the number of mistakes committed by several selected candidates was "numerous and runs beyond the number of mistakes prescribed for the Senior Grade." Such a selection process, the Court held, is the "anti-thesis to merit" and negates the very object of conducting a skill test in the first place.

"It is seen that candidates who secured zero marks (0 marks) in transcription have been selected for the post of P.A. to Hon'ble Judges... This shows that selection itself is anti-thesis to merit."

Irregularities And External Help During Skill Tests

The Court further took note of a report regarding CCTV footage from the Madurai Bench which revealed that an Assistant Registrar (Admn-I) had interacted with and allegedly helped candidates during the transcription phase of the skill test. The Bench perused letters from Nodal Officers confirming that the official appeared to have assisted candidates who attended the Senior and Junior grade tests.

These findings, coupled with the selection of over-aged and underqualified candidates, led the Court to conclude that the entire process was fundamentally flawed. The Court rejected the submission that candidates had since acquired the qualifications, stating that curing illegalities post-facto would result in the infringement of the rights of other aspiring staff members.

The Court concluded that resorting to rule relaxations was unwarranted and unnecessary, as it paved the way for a "cloaked embargo" on eligible candidates from the open pool. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointments of Respondents 2 to 18 and granted the High Court Registry the liberty to conduct a fresh selection process strictly in accordance with the Rules.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026