Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD, J
M I FAIZAL – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERISATION), HIGH COURT OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10560/2013
Judicial Appointment - Application Rejection - Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Application Process - The case discusses the rejection of a judicial application due to a minor defect in Form A, interpreting the importance of substantial compliance over technical errors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lawyer, applied for the District and Sessions Judge position but had his application rejected due to the failure to mention the name and designation of the Presiding Officer in Form A, despite other identification details being sufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled that the rejection of the application was improper as the omission was not a significant defect, referencing a previous ruling where such omission did not warrant application rejection.
Issues: Whether the omission of the name and designation of the Presiding Officer in Form A is a valid reason for rejecting the application for a judicial position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that minor omissions in application forms, which do not affect the overall identification and eligibility of the applicant, should not lead to application rejections.
Final Decision: Petition allowed; the petitioner is permitted to appear for the written examination.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a practicing lawyer. He is an aspirant for the post of District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. 1st respondent invited application for the selection to the said post. He filed application for the post in pursuance of Ext.P1, notification. Ext.P1 requires the candidates to apply online in two parts. In addition to that, the candidates have to take system generated print out of the online application of both parts and send it along with Form A certificate duly filled up and certified by a Presiding Officer. Submission of the petitioner is that after complying with all the formalities, he produced the filled up forms before the 1st respondent. On enquiry made on 08.04.2013, it was revealed that the office of the 1st respondent rejected the application because of non-mentioning of the name and designation of the Presiding Officer in Form A. Ext.P5 is the copy of duly filled up Form A. Ext.P5 shows that the Judicial Officer has signed on the prescribed form. His name and designation are not seen affixed in Ext.P5. Instead, the court seal affixed shows the designation of the Presiding Officer. Petitioner submitted that non- mentioning of the name and designation of the Judicial Officer was not a mistake of him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14442 of 2011, submitted that this is not a serious defect for which an application can be rejected. In the Writ Petition mentioned above, question raised for consideration was as to whether omission to mention the designation of the Presiding Officer in Form A could be taken as a major defect, inter alia, other issues. After considering all matters, learned Judge found that the same cannot be treated as a major defect for rejecting the application. In Ext.P5 also, sufficient materials to identify the Presiding Officer have been mentioned. Therefore, I find that the rejection of application was not proper.
In the result, petition is allowed. 1st respondent shall allow the petitioner to appear for the ensuing written examination for selection of District and Sessions Judges to be held on 11th and 12th of May, 2013.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
