GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is an Advocate practising at Thiruvananthapuram. He was one of the applicants for the post of District Judge (by direct recruitment from Bar) for which three vacancies have been notified. He participated in the interview conducted by the High Court in the months of August and September, 1991. (Five Judges of this High Court as decided by all the Judges in a 'Full Court meeting' interviewed the candidates). Petitioner came to know that his name has not been included in a list of three names prepared by the High Court and forwarded to the Government. He says that he was interviewed in the year 1988 also for the post of District Judge, and then also he was not included in the select list. From some newspaper reports he understood that the High Court, while preparing the list, has not complied with the principle of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other-Backward Classes. Hence he filed the original petition for a direction to the Government not to make any appointment to the post of District Judge from the list sent by the High Court. Certain other ancillary reliefs were, also prayed for by him.

(2.) Learned single Judge dismissed the original petition without going into the merits as the selection made by the High Court is yet to be finalised. Learned single Judge refrained from making "any comment on the language used and the nature of the allegations made by the petitioner".

(3.) In the original petition, he made some scathing allegations against Judges of this High Court and particularly against one sitting Judge byname. It speaks against the petitioner as he used his original petition to make wanton and irresponsible allegations against sitting Judges of the High Court, when he is sure that the Judges concerned are not in a position even to refute the allegations. (Those against whom he made those allegations were not parties in the original petition).