JAYAKUMAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an applicant to the post of District Judge when the High Court notified recruitment as per Ext. P1. He has completed 8 years of practice as lawyer and is qualified in terms of special rules as well as the qualification standards made mention of in Ext. P1. In Ext. P1 notification, it was made clear to every applicant that selection will be on the basis of oral examination. It was also made clear that if the number of applicants is disproportionately large vis a vis the number of posts to be filled up, the High Court may short list the candidates by their length of practice at the Bar and such short listed candidates alone would be invited for oral examination. It was made clear that such shortlisting will not be applicable to the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribe, obviously because of the reservation available in respect of such castes and tribes and the experience of the High Court that sufficient number of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe are not being represented in the concerned service. Petitioner submits that the High Court had shortlisted the candidates on the basis of length of practice at the bar and the petitioner was not invited for interview. Petitioner further submits that, he understood that, only those candidates who have completed 10 years of length of practice at the bar alone were invited for interview, except in the case of SC / ST candidates. This amounts to discrimination and violation of the provisions contained in Art.233(2) of the Constitution of India. If such weeding out has to be adopted, that shall be uniformly made applicable to the SC / ST candidates as well, the petitioner contends. Otherwise, it will emerge as a discrimination to the persons like the petitioner, who had been weeded out inspite of possession of similar qualification as the SC / ST candidates.

(2.) I am unable to accept this contention. Art.233(2) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

(3.) This aspect is covered by a decision reported in Prathapan v. Registrar of High Court of Kerala ( 1984 KLT 625 ). Of course that case relates to recruitment to the post of Assistants in the service of the High Court of Kerala. The minimum qualification as per the rules was degree from a University. Inspite of that, the appointing authority invited applications only from the persons possessing graduation with second class, a higher standard than that insisted by the rules. When that was challenged, it was held that such stipulation involves no modification of the statutory rules or the qualifications prescribed by the statutory rules, it only lays down a process for screening the candidates by narrowing the field of choice by eliminating third class graduates from scrutiny to minimise the difficulties of screening and to secure the better level of talent for the High Court Service. The principle is one and the same in Clause.4 of Ext. P1. Therefore, on the basis of the said ruling, the contention of the petitioner in that regard has to be negatived.