Madras HC Rejects Regularisation Claims of Temporary Typists and Junior Assistants in District Judiciary, Directs Annual Recruitment Instead
A Division Bench dismissed batch writ petitions from temporary Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants in Tamil Nadu's District Judiciary, holding that Rule 16(e)(i) temporary appointments confer no right to regularisation, and directed the Judicial Department to fill sanctioned posts through annual recruitment via TNPSC.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a common order dated 9 July 2026, disposed of a batch of 57 writ petitions filed by temporary Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants serving across the District Judiciary of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners sought reinstatement, regularisation, and back wages, or alternatively appointment to any post not required to be filled through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam, who authored the order, and Justice N. Senthilkumar, declined all such relief. The bench held that appointments made under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules carry an explicit bar against any preferential claim to future appointment, and that directing regularisation without an open competitive process would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The bench also directed the Judicial Department to undertake regular annual recruitment to fill sanctioned posts and to permit the petitioners — including those already terminated — to apply, with age relaxation if necessary.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioners are temporary Steno-Typists, Typists, and Junior Assistants appointed by various Principal District Judges across Tamil Nadu — in districts including Vellore, Krishnagiri, Chengalpattu, Salem, Krishnagiri, Namakkal, Thiruvarur, The Nilgiris, and others. Their appointments were made under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules to meet administrative exigencies in the District Judiciary.
The posts of Steno-Typist, Typist, and Junior Assistant fall under Category 5 of Class IV of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. Some petitioners had served for more than ten to fifteen years, with periodic breaks. A number had already been terminated from service and sought reinstatement; others still in service sought regularisation in sanctioned posts at the regular time scale of pay.
The petitions challenged orders passed by the respective Principal District Judges refusing regularisation — in particular, an order dated 28.02.2025 bearing Dis.No.2014/2015/A and orders dated 13.10.2023 bearing Dis.No.10885/2023/A, as well as orders dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was suo motu impleaded in several petitions.
Rule 16(e)(i) and the Bar on Regularisation
Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules governs temporary appointments and states in explicit terms that a person so appointed “shall not be regarded as a probationer or be entitled any reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment.” The rule further provides that such service is liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without any reason being assigned.
The petitioners argued that despite breaks in service, they had rendered continuous functional service for extended periods and relied on four Supreme Court decisions: Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 INSC 144), and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India ((2024) 9 SCC 327).
The respondents countered that the terms of Rule 16(e)(i) were known and accepted at the time of appointment, that the petitioners were working against non-sanctioned posts, and that they were not appointed through the regular recruitment process. The respondents relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in E. Jailatha @ Sivagami v. State in W.P.(MD) Nos.7134 to 7148 of 2025 etc., batch, dated 17.06.2025, which the respondents submitted squarely applied to the present facts.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench anchored its analysis in the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. It emphasised that the one-time measure contemplated in paragraph 53 of that judgment cannot be perpetuated to cure irregularity or illegality in public appointments, and that paragraph 54 expressly denuded of precedent value any judgment that ran counter to those principles.
The bench stated that irregular, illegal, and back-door appointments violate not only applicable service rules but also the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates aspiring to public employment through open competitive selection. It observed that permitting regularisation without a proper process would violate the equality clause and amount to what the bench termed a “constitutional sin.”
It addressed the petitioners' reliance on various Supreme Court judgments by holding that discretionary orders passed in individual cases on their specific facts cannot be followed as precedent for granting regularisation in a routine manner. Any judgment running counter to the Constitution Bench principles must be confined to the facts of that particular case.
The bench drew on State of Orissa v. Bhikari Chatran Khuntia (2003 AIR SCW 5374), where the Supreme Court distinguished temporary appointments from regular selections and held that candidates appointed through such routes could not claim parity with those selected through the regular process.
On the position specific to judicial administration, the bench followed the three-Judge Bench decision in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts ((2014) 14 SCC 50), which had directed strict compliance with recruitment rules and adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution before any appointment. The Madurai Bench decision in E. Jailatha @ Sivagami, which had rejected the claims of similarly placed temporary employees in the District Judiciary, was also followed.
The bench accepted the respondents' position that there were insufficient sanctioned posts to regularise the petitioners. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, had filed an affidavit dated 13.03.2025 explaining the administrative necessity: vacancies in the posts of Junior Assistant, Typist, and Steno-Typist Grade III arise continuously due to the constitution of new courts, creation of new posts, staff resignations, transfers, promotions, and retirements. Substantial delays by TNPSC in sponsoring candidates had further forced the Judicial Department to make temporary appointments to prevent pendency of cases.
The bench accepted that the administrative exigency was real, but held that it could not justify regularisation of employees who were working against non-sanctioned posts without undergoing a competitive process. Having accepted the terms of Rule 16(e)(i), the petitioners could not turn around and claim permanency.
At the same time, the bench observed that temporary appointments of this nature cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, as prolonged continuation creates expectations for regularisation. It directed the Judicial Department to take proactive steps to ensure that the required number of sanctioned posts are made available and filled through regular recruitment on an annual basis.
Direction on Future Recruitment and Age Relaxation
The bench directed that when a recruitment notification is issued for the posts of Steno-Typist, Typist, and Junior Assistant in the District Judiciary, the present petitioners — both those currently serving as temporary employees and those already terminated — shall be permitted to participate in the recruitment process, provided they are otherwise eligible. Age relaxation shall be granted to them if necessary. The bench made clear, however, that other educational and essential qualifications cannot be dispensed with.
Outcome
All 57 writ petitions, along with connected miscellaneous petitions, were disposed of. No order was made as to costs. The common order was passed by Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar on 9 July 2026 and carries the neutral citation 2026:MHC:2999.