IMPORTANT POINTS:
" The method of appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate is by direct recruitment and transfer in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Rules and clauses (i) to (viii) thereof specified the different categories.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

'The High Court can afford to be arbitrary on the judicial side but certainly not on the administrative side'

remarked a learned Judge of this Court in a lighter vein in the midst of hearing of a case challenging the selection of District Judges two decades ago. The above observation continues to be relevant even as on today evident by the facts unfolded in the present case relating to the appointment of Temporary Munsiff-Magistrates by this Court.

2. Willingness was called for from eligible candidates for appointment as Temporary Munsiff-Magistrate by Ext.P3 Official Memorandum dated 18.6.2018 and Ext.P4 Guidelines issued by the High Court. Ext.P3 Official Memorandum verbatim reproduced Rule 5(3) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 ('the Rules' for short) as regards eligibility though Rule 5(3)(viii) thereof was omitted. Officers working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General's Office and Law Department in the Government Secretariat were hence excluded from consideration. Ext.P3 Official Memorandum also prescribed an age limit of 52 years as on 1.6.2018 in order to be eligible to apply though the Rules did not impose any such restriction. The writ petition was filed by the Judicial Staff Organisation and another to quash Ext.P3 Official Memorandum and Ext.P4 Guidelines and for a direction to issue notification anew in tune with the Rules.

3. The High Court and the Registrar who are respondents 2 and 3 contended that they had addressed the Government to amend the Rules by deleting Rule 5(3)(viii) there from which is complained of. It is their further case that Rule 9 of the Rules empowers them to appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the Rules temporarily in public interest owing to an emergency. Special norms were formulated by the Administrative Committee in view of the past experience compelling the withdrawal of a previous batch of Temporary Munsiff-Magistrates. The locus standi of the writ petitioners who are the Kerala Civil Judicial Staff Organisation and its Secretary to question the eligibility criteria fixed was also doubted. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and two sets of writ appeals-one by the High Court and the Registrar and another by the appointees-have accordingly been filed.

4. We heard Mr. N.N. Suganapalan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the High Court and its Registrar as well as Mr. C.Unnikrishnan, Advocate on behalf of the third party appellants besides Dr. K.P. Pradeep, Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondents.

5. The method of appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate is by direct recruitment and transfer in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Rules and clauses (i) to (viii) thereof specified the different categories. The categories from which recruitment by transfer could be made included Officers working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General's Office and Law Department. Rule 5(3)(viii) of the Rules before amendment reads as follows:

“(viii). Officers working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General's Office and Law Department in the Government Secretariat not covered by categories (i) to (vii) and having not less than ten years of total service in any of the four offices or in the four offices taken together.”

Rule 5(3)(viii) of the Rules after amendment reads as follows:

“(viii) Principal counselors of the Family Courts in the State of Kerala.”

The amendment to the Rules was prospective by notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 14.1.2019 whereas the un-amended Rules covered the field when the recruitment was in process to the post of Temporary Munsiff-Magistrate.

6. Both Ext.P3 Official Memorandum and Ext.P4 Guidelines issued by the High Court omitted the category specified in Rule 5(3)(viii) of the un-amended Rules which was in vogue at the time of its issue. Ext.P3 Official Memorandum dated 18.6.2018 also stipulated that the applicant should not have completed 52 years of age as on