Selection Process Violating Statutory Rules and Merit Standards via Arbitrary Circular Relaxations Is Legally Unsustainable

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court took suo motu cognizance of alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for the post of Personal Assistant (P.A.) to Hon'ble Judges following a circular dated 07.06.2023.

Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, mandates specific qualifications, including a Bachelor’s Degree and a pass in the Government Technical Examination in Shorthand and Typewriting (English Higher Grade).

The impugned circular permitted candidates with lesser qualifications (Junior/Intermediate Grade) to apply, granting them a two-year grace period to acquire the requisite skills.

The Registry appointed candidates who failed the skill test (some securing zero marks in transcription) and ignored reports of malpractice/assistance provided to candidates during the test at the Madurai Bench.

1. Whether the circular dated 07.06.2023 and the subsequent appointments were ultra vires Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the selection process was vitiated by administrative irregularities, including the appointment of unqualified/over-aged candidates and malpractice during the skill test.

Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, which prescribes mandatory technical qualifications for P.A.s and dictates that recruitment by transfer must be based on "selection on merit," failing which direct recruitment must be opened to the public.

The doctrine of Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits arbitrary relaxation of rules that creates an uneven playing field.

Established principles of service jurisprudence which hold that a circular cannot override statutory rules and that merit-based selection is the cornerstone of public employment.

The Court reasoned that the circular was facially contradictory to Rule 14A because it lowered the mandatory technical standards of Shorthand and Typewriting (Higher Grade) to Junior levels.

By granting an "unjustified extra grace period" to in-service candidates to acquire qualifications after appointment, the Registry excluded qualified potential candidates from the "open pool," thereby infringing upon the Right to Equality.

The Court found the process "absurd" as candidates who secured zero marks in transcription or failed the skill test were nonetheless appointed, effectively negating the objective of a merit-based selection.

The Court noted that CCTV evidence and nodal officer reports confirmed that an Assistant Registrar had improperly assisted candidates during the transcription phase, further tainting the integrity of the selection.

The Court set aside the selection and appointment of Respondents 2 to 18 made via the circular dated 07.06.2023 and the order dated 04.08.2023.

The High Court Registry was directed to conduct a fresh selection process in strict accordance with the Rules.

The Suo-motu Writ Petition was allowed.