JAHANGEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The selection and appointment of Part-time Official Receiver in Thiruvananthapuram District is under challenge in both these Writ Petitions filed by the same writ petitioner. The appointment of Official Receiver is to be effected by the Government, based on the recommendation given by the 'Judges of the High Court', in consultation with the concerned District Judge and the power of the Government is traceable to S. 59 of the Insolvency Act 1955. S. 61 of the 'Act' deals with the powers of the Official Receiver, which involves; various money transactions, pledging of property, settling creditors etc,. and the post is having pivotal role which has necessarily to be occupied by a competent person with unblemished reputation.

(2.) On coming across the notification issued by the second respondent, the petitioner applied for the post in question. Altogether 13 applicants, including the petitioner were there. Instead of sending all the applications for consideration by the Judges of the High Court; for recommendation to the Government in consultation with the District Judge, as contemplated under the relevant Rules, the second respondent/District Judge just forwarded a panel of 5 candidates. According to the petitioner, as per the relevant Rules, appointment has to be effected by the Government from the panel of names recommended by the Judges of the High Court in consultation with the District Judge concerned. This being the position, there was no authority for the second respondent/District Judge to have prepared and forwarded a panel of 5 persons to the High Court. Contending that, the power vested with the High Court to prepare the panel cannot be delegated to the District Judge, the petitioner has filed W.P. (C). No. 12957 of 2012, seeking to direct the second respondent/District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to forward all the applications he received, pursuant to Ext. P1 notification, with recommendation, to be placed before the 'Judges of the High Court' and for such other relief's. All the persons, who submitted applications in response to Ext. P1 notification stand impleaded in the party array as the respondents 4 to 15 in W.P. (C). No. 12957 of 2012 and the service of notice is complete.

(3.) The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit referring to the relevant facts and figures and that there is nothing arbitrary, illegal or irregular on the part of the second respondent in having forwarded a panel of 5 candidates, whom he considered to be the best suitable. Such a course was pursued by the second respondent, based on Ext. R3(a) Official Memorandum dated 8.3.2012, whereby the second respondent was directed to forward a panel of 5 candidates in the order of their merit and whom the District Judge considered most suitable, having regard to the duties of the post and the Rules governing the appointment A true copy of the relevant Government Order bearing No. D. Dis. 20528/57/HD dated 2.7.1957 stipulating the mode/procedure of selection has been produced by the third respondent as Ext. R3(b) and the modification made as per G.O. (MS) No. 1135 dated 17.5.1958 with reference to the selection has been produced as Ext. R3(c). It was accordingly, that Ext. P1 notice was issued by the second respondent inviting applications and after considering the same and also after making necessary enquiry, a list of 5 eligible persons was prepared and forwarded to the High Court.