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

2020 Supreme(Ker) 899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. ASHA, J.
Deepa – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.20301 of 2019
Decided on : 14-07-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Sreekumar (Sr.), P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Manjunath Menon, Ajay Ben Jose, R. Githesh & S. Harikrishnan
For the Respondent: N. Manoj Kumar (Spl. Government Pleader), P.J. Elvin Peter, S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, N. Santha, V. Varghese, Peter Jose Christo, S.A. Anand, L. Annapoorna, V.K. Vishnu & Abhirami K. Uday

IMPORTANT POINT
Clause 6(2) of Ext.P1 notification deals with qualifications required for the candidates for selection and appointment as District Judges. Clause 6(2) provides that eligibility of a candidate would be determined with reference to the date of closure of Step II process. It is stated that the last date fixed for closure of step II process was extended to 22.01.2018.

Headnote:

Constitution of India- Article 233-The provision for determining eligibility would be the last date fixed for closure of step II process did not have any application in respect of age or practice as advocate, as it is already provided that both should be as on 01.01.2017- Eligibility with respect to qualification is to be determined as on the date of closure of step II process

Statement of facts:

The petitioner, who was included in the rank list for appointment to the post of District Judge in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service, is challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent as District and Sessions Judge.

Finding of the court:

The appointment of the 3rd respondent as District and Sessions Judge can only be set aside, as he was not an Advocate as on the date of his appointment. As a consequence the petitioner, who is the candidate ranked below him in the list of NCA candidates for Ezhava, Thiyya and Billava and who continues to be an Advocate, would therefore be entitled to get appointment in his place.

Result: Writ Petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who was included in the rank list for appointment to the post of District Judge in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service, is challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent as District and Sessions Judge.

2. The High Court of Kerala issued Ext.P1 notification dated 21.11.2017 inviting applications for appointment as District and Sessions Judges in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar. 4 regular vacancies (probable), 2 NCA vacancies of Scheduled Castes and one NCA vacancy each of Hindu Nadar, Muslims, Latin Catholics/Anglo Indians, Viswakarmas and Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas communities, were notified. After the written examination and interview, the High Court published Ext.P4 list of candidates who qualified in the examination 2017, on 07.06.2019. In the list of candidates for NCA vacancy of Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas, the 3rd respondent was ranked at sl.no.2 and the petitioner at rank no.4. In the list of candidates for regular vacancies the 3rd respondent was included at serial no.3 and the petitioner at serial no.13. On 08.06.2019 the High Court as per Ext.P6 notice informed that candidates who were Judicial Officers on the date of publication of recruitment notification would not be considered for appointment as District and Sessions Judges. It was also informed that the Full Court of the High Court in its meeting held on 06.06.2019 resolved to appoint 8 candidates including the 3rd respondent at Sl. no.5 as District and Sessions Judges. Thereafter, as per Ext.P10 order dated 02.08.2019 the Honourable Governor of Kerala appointed 5 candidates as District and Sessions Judges by direct recruitment from the Bar (NCA selection 2017) against NCA vacancies of different communities. The 3rd respondent, who was at serial no.5 in that, was appointed against NCA vacancy of Ezhavas/Thiyyas/Billavas. The petitioner challenges the inclusion of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P5 list and his appointment as per Ext.P10 order and seeks a direction to include her name in the list and to grant her appointment in the place of the 3rd respondent. She alleged that the 3rd respondent was not eligible to apply for the post since he was appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service as per order dated 28.12.2017 and therefore he was not entitled to be included in Ext.P6 list or for appointment as District and Sessions Judge.

3. It is stated that as per Ext.P1 notification, applications were invited from candidates who were practising advocates having not less than 7 years' practice. Clause 6(2) of Ext.P1 notification deals with qualifications required for the candidates for selection and appointment as District Judges. Clause 6(2) provides that eligibility of a candidate would be determined with reference to the date of closure of Step II process. It is stated that the last date fixed for closure of step II process was extended to 22.01.2018.

4. In Ext.P1 itself in clause 20 the date of closure of step II process was notified as 11.01.2018 and last date for receipt of the copies of the required documents was notified as 22.01.2018. As per Ext.P2 notification the date of closure of Step II process was extended from 11.01.2018 to 22.01.2018 and the last date of receipt of documents was 01.02.2018. In the meanwhile, as per Ext.P9 notification dated 28.12.2017 the Hon'ble Governor of Kerala appointed 21 candidates including the 3rd respondent as Munsiff-Magistrates, by direct recruitment. The petitioner was at sl.no.13 in that list. Based on Ext.P9 and other 2 orders the High Court issued Ext.P5 order dated 11.01.2018 inducting 28 candidates in the Kerala Judicial Service and posted them in various stations with effect from 12.02.2018, directing them to take charge in their respective stations on 12.02.2018. The 3rd respondent was at serial no.21 in Ext.P5 list and he was posted as Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha. The petitioner alleged that the 3rd respondent was not eligible to su

        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 Back to top