Zero Marks In Transcription, Yet Selected: Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of 17 Personal Assistants To Judges
|The Court found that over-aged and under-qualified candidates had been permitted to participate in the selection process.
The Madras High Court has set aside the selection and appointment of 17 Personal Assistants (P.A.) to Judges, holding that the recruitment process was tainted by irregularities, violation of service rules, and arbitrariness.
The Court examined the selection process initiated through the circular dated June 7, 2023. The Court found that over-aged and under-qualified candidates had been permitted to participate in the selection process. It also noted that several selected candidates were appointed subject to passing the skill test after one year or acquiring Senior Grade Shorthand qualification within two years, describing such relaxations as "serious transgression of service rules."
A Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar noted, “Also in terms of evaluation of skill test marks, 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.”
Senior Advocate P.S.Raman appeared for the Respondents.
The Court said Rule 14A of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, requires candidates for the post of Personal Assistant to Hon'ble Judges to possess Higher Grade qualification in English Shorthand and Typewriting. However, the recruitment circular permitted candidates with Junior or Intermediate Grade qualifications to participate by giving them two years to acquire the prescribed qualification.
The Court noted that the candidates who had not passed the mandatory skill test were appointed and granted a grace period to qualify later, it noted, “It is also shocking to see from the above Office Memorandum that certain candidates were appointed with a condition that they should pass the skill test after one year from the date of appointment. This is absurd as selection process is based on passing the skill test only. But candidates who have not even passed the skill test were appointed and given a grace period to clear the test. This negates the very object of conducting a skill test and selection based on merit.”
The Bench also referred to records indicating alleged irregularities during the skill test conducted at the Madurai Bench. It cited a letter stating that CCTV footage appeared to show Assistant Registrar (Administration-I) S. Muthusubramanian interacting with candidates during the transcription test, suggesting that he would have helped the candidates for transcription.
It also observed that the number of transcription mistakes recorded for some candidates revealed serious discrepancies and violations in the selection process, adding that the selection itself was "anti-thesis to merit."
Senior counsel appearing for the selected candidates, submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents had acquired the requisite qualifications and should therefore be allowed to continue in service.
Rejecting the submission, the Court held, “Therefore, in order to ensure equal opportunity in employment, all those candidates should also be permitted to participate in the selection process. If illegalities are cured, it will result in infringement of the rights of the other staff members who are all equals and are aspiring for the post of P.A. to Hon'ble Judges. That apart, it will create a wrong precedent.”
The Court held, “selection and appointment of respondents 2 to 18 to the post of P.A. to Hon’ble Judges in the High Court of Madras made as per circular dated 07.06.2023 and appointment made vide ROC.No.16/2023-CON.ESTT.I, dated 04.08.2023 are set aside. The High Court is at liberty to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the Rules and by following the procedures contemplated as expeditiously as possible.”
Cause Title: Suo-motu Writ Petition v. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras & Ors., [2026:MHC:2406]
Appearance:
Respondents: Senior Advocate P.S.Raman, Advocates B. Vijay, C.Vigneswaran and P.Vasanthakumar