JAYAKRISHNA KAIMAL P Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was a candidate for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate, when applications were called for the same by the respondents, as per Ext.P2 notification. The appellant was a practising lawyer. Therefore, he should produce experience-cum-conduct certificate in Form-A annexed to the application. It is common ground that he did not produce the certificate in that Form. Instead, he produced a certificate issued by the High Court Bar Association. The respondents decided to reject his application. He was informed of the same by Ext.P3 communication, wherein the reason for rejection is shown as "application by practising advocates unaccompanied by Form-A certificate to show experience at the Bar". Challenging the said communication, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a law graduate, even if he is not enrolled and even if he is unemployed or working elsewhere, can apply for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate. Therefore, the absence of a certificate to show experience at the Bar cannot be treated as a valid ground for rejecting the appellant's application. This submission is made, relying on the qualifications prescribed for the post, as per Ext.P2. The said notification would show that experience at the Bar is not a mandatory qualification. The very same point was urged before the learned Single Judge. Form-A certificate is a certificate showing the experience at the Bar and also the character and conduct of the incumbent. All the applicants should produce a conduct certificate. In the case of a practising lawyer, the conduct certificate would show his experience at the Bar also. It should be issued by the Presiding Officer of the Court, where he is practising. Since the appellant claimed that he is a practising lawyer it was mandatory for him to produce a certificate in Form-A from the Presiding Officer. Taking this view, the learned Single Judge rejected the aforementioned contention of the appellant.

(3.) Having regard to the contents of Form-A, a copy of which was made available to us by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, we find it difficult to take a different view. Form-A requires certification regarding the length of practice and also regarding the candidate's character and conduct. It is mandatory to submit the certificate in Form-A along with the application, if the applicant is a practising lawyer. Therefore, we think, the view taken by the respondents, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be said it to be illegal or irrational, warranting interference at our hands.