The main legal point established is that the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction for selecting Munsiffs, and the amendment to the rules did not have retrospective effect, as supported by Supreme Court decisions.

1. A commendable stand by the Government, to assure independence of the judiciary, was taken in favour of an exclusive jurisdiction to be exercised by the High Court to select persons for appointment to the posts of Munsiffs in the Civil Judicial Service. The first step in the right direction in this regard was the amendment of the relevant regulations and rules to exclude the consultative jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission in respect of these officers and to regulate the process of selection only through the High Court.

2. The Supreme Court, on being informed about the transfer of jurisdiction from the Public Service Commission to the High Court, observed as follows:

"We should record our sense of happiness at the said action so promptly taken by the State Government".

(Vide Civil No. 2109/85 dated 20-4-1987 against the decision of this Court in ILR. 1985 (1) Kerala 516)

3. The petitioners in these two writ petitions, are aspirants for the posts of Munsiffs. Four of them are over-aged and are, therefore, not entitled to apply for selection pursuant to the notification issued by the High Court in 1987. But all of them had submitted applications to the Public Service Commission earlier when the Commission invited applications in July 1986. They were also allowed to sit for an examination conducted by the Commission on 6-12-1986. The results have not been published and possibly the Commission was not even bound to publish them. No further steps have, however, been taken by the Commission thereafter. The petitioners claim to be considered on the basis of those applications either by the Commission or by the High Court.

4. A learned single judge before whom these writ petitions came up for admission directed that these papers may be placed before the Chief Justice for orders regarding admission and the Chief Justice has directed that the two petitions be posted before us.

5. The Kerala Civil Judicial Service Rules, 1973 came into force on 18th September 1973. The service consisted of two categories of officers, Subordinate Judges and Munsiffs. All first appointments by direct recruitment or transfer to the category of Munsiffs are to be made from a list of approved candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission. These posts were not excluded from the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation, 1957, though certain posts were expressly excluded in the Annexure to those rules. However, by an amendment dated 31-1-1987, published in the gazette on 24-2-1987, the posts of Munsiffs and Magistrates of the Second Class were not included in the Annexure. Thus, from 24-2-1987, "It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted" for recruitment and appointment to the posts of Munsiffs and Magistrates of the Second Class. These posts went beyond the purview of the Commission. Following this amendment to these regulations, the Kerala Civil Judicial Service Rules, 1973 were amended by a notification dated 24th of March 1987 and published on 28th April 1987 under which the words 'The High Court' were substituted for the words The Public Service Commission' occurring in R.7 and 11. The result was that from that date the list of approved candidates for appointment to these two categories of posts, including Munsiffs, can be prepared only by the High Court and not by the Commission. The High Court, therefore, invited applications for appointment by direct recruitment from the Bar and for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Munsiffs, as per a notification published on 24th November ,1987.

6. Petitioners 1, 4, 5 and 6 in O. P. 10507/87 have either applied in pursuance of this notification or propose to apply before the last date, 24-12-1987. The other petitioners are ineligible to apply as they are over-aged on the 1st of July 1987. But all of them, as stated already had applied to the Commission earlier in 1986.

7. None of the petitioners challenge the validity of the amendment made