SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 936

P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Kiranlal M. – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: D. Anil Kumar
For the Respondents: B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, Lowsy A., Sinu G. Nath, P. Sankarankutty Nair, K. Sandesh Raja, Venu Menon, Lal K. Joseph, Joseph Kurian Vallamattam, A.A. Ziyad Rahman, V.S. Shiraz Bava, Philip T. Varghese, Jacob P. Alex, Joseph P. Alex, Reji George, Binoy Davis, G. Sreekumar, Thomas T. Varghese, Achu Subha Abraham, K.R. Mohisha, Rekha Vasudevan, Sherry J. Thomas, Rajesh Sivaramankutty, R.T. Pradeep, S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, N. Santha, K.A. Balan, Peter Jose Christo, S.A. Anand, K.V. Rejanish, I. Sheela Devi, K. Jaju Babu, M.U. Vijayalakshmi, K.N. Radhakrishnan, Babu S. Nair, K. Rakesh, Liji J. Vadakedom, S. Sujin, Millu Dandapani, Leni Susan Thomas, Paul Jose, S. Prasanth, Varsha Bhaskar, Liju. M.P., B. Ragunathan, M. Salim, R. Srinath, V.M. Jacob, M.M. Lalbind, R.V. Sreejith, K. Shaj, Sajju S.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

Petitioner has appeared for the Kerala Judicial Service Examination, 2013 for selection as Munsiff/Magistrate pursuant to a notification published by the High Court of Kerala. He seeks, in this writ petition, directions to the High Court of Kerala to revalue the papers of all the candidates in the said examination and prepare a fresh merit list.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate who has applied for selection as Munsiff/Magistrate, pursuant to the notification published by the High Court of Kerala on 21.3.2013. The selection as per the notification, consisted of a preliminary examination, a main examination and viva voce. As per the terms of the notification, only candidates who pass the preliminary examination will be called for the main examination and only candidates who secure 40% marks for each of the four papers in the main examination will be called for viva voce. The petitioner did not secure 40% marks in paper IV of the main examination and consequently, he was not called for the viva voce. According to the petitioner, though he has answered all the questions in paper IV correctly, the answers written by him were not valued properly by the exami



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top