- Top court refuses immediate listing of appeal against Madras High Court’s order quashing appointments of 17 Personal Assistants to judges
- Recruitment came under judicial scanner in suo motu proceedings over alleged arbitrariness and dilution of merit
- High Court had held service rules were relaxed to accommodate ineligible candidates instead of following direct recruitment norms
- Case rekindles debate on transparency, meritocracy and institutional accountability in judicial administration
NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, JULY 2
In a significant development with far-reaching implications for transparency in judicial administration, the Supreme Court on Thursday declined to accord urgent hearing to a plea challenging the Madras High Court’s decision that set aside the appointments of 17 Personal Assistants (PAs) to judges after finding the recruitment process arbitrary and devoid of merit-based evaluation.
A partial working-day Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu refused the request for an expedited hearing after senior advocate S. Nagamuthu mentioned the matter seeking its listing on Friday, citing the likely impact on the functioning of the Madras High Court following the cancellation of the appointments. The Bench, however, declined the request for immediate listing.
The appeal arises from a landmark judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in suo motu proceedings initiated over alleged irregularities in the selection process for Personal Assistants to judges. The High Court concluded that the entire recruitment exercise was vitiated by arbitrariness and undertaken without due regard to merit, prompting it to invalidate the appointments.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court had observed that instead of adhering to the recruitment rules requiring direct recruitment where eligible in-service candidates were unavailable, the authorities relaxed eligibility conditions to facilitate the appointment of in-service candidates who did not satisfy the prescribed qualifications. The court held that such an approach undermined meritocracy and risked eroding public confidence in judicial institutions.
According to the High Court, vacancies that could not be filled by qualified departmental candidates ought to have been thrown open for direct recruitment in accordance with the applicable service rules. Instead, candidates lacking mandatory qualifications were permitted to participate, selected and subsequently granted relaxation to overcome their ineligibility, a course the court found impermissible under the governing rules.
During Thursday’s mentioning before the apex court, senior advocate S. Nagamuthu urged the Bench to list the appeal on an urgent basis, contending that the High Court’s functioning would be affected by the cancellation of the appointments. The Bench, however, was not persuaded to advance the hearing and declined to list the matter on Friday.
The litigation is expected to be closely watched by the legal fraternity as it raises important questions on adherence to statutory recruitment rules, institutional integrity and the primacy of merit in appointments within the judicial establishment. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant urgent listing means the challenge will now proceed in the ordinary course.
