K.DEEPA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.