The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the petitioner's representation was not based on proper consideration of relevant materials, and that the petition under Art.226 of the Constitution was maintainable despite the objection raised.

1. The petitioner in the original petition apart from seeking to quash Ext. P3 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's representation Ext. P2 which questioned the promotion of the persons referred to therein as Sheristadar, District Court in the Travancore-Cochin area, has also prayed for being promoted as Sheristadar, District Court in the Travancore-Cochin area earlier than respondents 3 to 8 in view of his alleged preferential claim based upon law qualification. The petitioner entered service in the Judicial Department of the erstwhile Travancore State on 25121118. He passed the Travancore Account Test in 1119 M. E., graduated in 1959 and took the B. L. Degree in April 1962. By seniority he was appointed Sheristadar of the Sub Court in the Travancore-Cochin area in March 1963. The petitioner's case is that according to the rule in force in the Travancore State and subsequently in the Travancore-Cochin State and also followed in the State of Kerala with reference to the Travancore-Cochin personnel the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Sheristadar. District Court in the Travancore-Cochin area is Account Test and B. L. degree. According to him, even after the formation of the Kerala State only persons who have passed the account test and taken the B. L Degree were promoted as Sheristadar of District Court in the Travancore-Cochin area and that this was the practice till 20121962.

2. When there were no law graduates the second respondent promoted temporarily four persons who did not possess law qualifications but who were seniors to the petitioner and their appointments were regularised on 20-12-1962. The petitioner therefore filed Ext. P2 on 31 51963 to review the order of 2012 1962 and promote him as Sheristadar in the District Court in the Travancore-Cochin area. Ext. P2 was rejected by Ext. P3 on the sole ground that "the rule which prescribed the law qualification as the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Sheristadar, District Court, in the Travancore-Cochin area, is no longer in force and hence the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment made by the High Court. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent but on behalf of the second respondent the Registrar of the High Court has filed a counter.

3. No doubt the petitioner has founded his petition under Art.226 of the Constitution on the ground that the provision fixing the qualification for the post of the Sheristadar, District Court, in the erstwhile Travancore State is in the Travancore Civil Courts' Guide which came into force on 111120 (16-8-1944). The relevant rules are R.314 and 320 (iv) in Chapter I, Part II of the Guide. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent the ground justifying the rejection of Ext. P2 is based on R.3 of the Travancore-Cochin Civil Rules of Practice, 1956. It is admitted that during the period from 1955 to 2012 1962 the High Court has been promoting only law graduates as District Court Sheristadars in the Travancore-Cochin area. The reason given by the second respondent is that R.3 of the Travancore-Cochin Civil Rules of Practice, 1956 was overlooked.

4. In the course of the discussion at the Bar a doubt arose whether the prescription of the qualification for the post of the Sheristadar, District Court, in the Travancore State was by the Travancore High Court or by the Travancore Government and only embodied in the Civil Courts' Guide, 1120, for reference. The particular notifications prescribing the qualifications for Sheristadar's post have not been produced. R.40 in Part II of the Travancore Service Regulations corrected up to 1959 reads:

"No person who is not a subject of His Highness the Mana Raja and who has not the requisite academic qualification, as per the Public Service Notification (vide Appendix No. IA) may be appointed to the Public Service in the State without the special sanction of Government, nor may any person be