ANUSHMA M KHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, filed by a practising Advocate, ought to have never been filed not merely because it is bereft of merit, but because it is extremely selfincriminating.

(2.) The petitioner's own asseverations, as detailed in the writ petition, make it indubitable that she confesses her lack of understanding of Civil Law but still aspires appointment as a District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that even though the mode of selection in Ext.P1 notification, issued by the High Court of Kerala, inviting on-line applications from qualified candidates for appointment as District and Sessions Judge against five 'No Candidate Available (NCA)' vacancies, stipulates that a preliminary examination (which is the first stage), will consist of 75 multiple choice questions comprising 30 from Civil Law; 30 from Criminal Law and 15 from the Constitution of India, English language, General Knowledge and Legal Attitude the question booklet provided to the candidates including herself a copy of which has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P4 contains 39 questions from the Civil Law and 17 questions from the Constitution of India, English language etc; while only 19 are from the Criminal Law.