BIJI Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners applied pursuant to the notification issued by the High Court of Kerala, inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Munsiff - Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service. The qualifications prescribed by Clause.4 of the notification in so far as it is relevant, is as follows:

(2.) The applications of the petitioners pursuant to the notification were rejected by the High Court on the ground that the petitioners were not practising as Advocates as stipulated in the notification and on the further ground that they did not belong to any of the prescribed feeder categories. These rejections are challenged in these Original Petitions.

(3.) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioners do not have practice for a period of five years as Advocates. Before the completion of that period, they have also taken up the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, though temporarily. They had not completed two years in those posts. What the petitioners urge is that merely because they have taken up the position of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, they did not cease to be practising advocates having a standing at the Bar and the period during which they are functioning as Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade II should also be added on to the earlier period in which they were practising as advocates and if the periods are added up, they would satisfy the five year period of practice envisaged in the notification prescribing qualifications. The petitioners rely on the decision in Sushama Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi 1999 (1) SCC 330 in support of their contention. They refer to Para.10 of that judgment in relation to the interpretation of R.49 of the Bar Council of India Rules and point out that since they are actually practising before Courts, they must be understood as practising advocates and the period during which they have taken up the position of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II should also be reckoned as "practice". Para.10 of the said decision reads as follows: