REMANY Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working in the ministerial wing of the subordinate judiciary, was promoted as a temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 16.4.1984 and continued for about 5 years. After suffering a reversion for about 4 months, she was again promoted as temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 29.6.1989 and continued as such till 25.2.1991, on which date she was reverted again. Pursuant to Ext. P1, notification dt. 16.1.1991 issued by the High Court of Kerala inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Munsiffs in the Kerala Judicial Service, the petitioner also applied. According to Ext. P1 notification, the methods of recruitment are direct recruitment from the Bar and recruitment by transfer. The post the petitioner was holding was one of the feeder categories for recruitment by transfer. The selection process consisted of a written examination in three papers carrying a maximum of 100 marks each and an oral examination carrying a maximum of 50 marks. Only candidates who secured not less than 45% marks in each of the papers of the written examination and 30% of the marks in the oral examination shall be eligible for appointment. According to the notification, the object of the oral examination is for deciding the candidates's general knowledge, grasp of general principles of law, analytical ability and suitability for appointment as Munsiff.

(2.) The petitioner successfully passed the written examination and appeared for the oral examination. But in Ext. P3 list of candidates selected for appointment as Munsiffs, the petitioner's name did not find a place. According to the petitioner, her name was excluded from the list on the ground that she did not secure the minimum 30% of the marks for the oral examination. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the above procedure adopted by the first respondent is opposed to the Kerala Civil Judicial Service Rules. According to the petitioner, the exclusion of her name was not justified when the rules did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for oral examination. According to the petitioner, the marks of both the oral and written examination should be added together and persons who top in the aggregate total marks should be selected. The petitioner has a case that persons who got less marks in the written examination were selected because the petitioner did not get the minimum of 30% marks in the oral examination. According to the petitioner this is unreasonable and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) Sri. Sahasranaman, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Durgacharan v. State of Orissa ( AIR 1987 SC 2267 ). According to the counsel for the petitioner, this decision applies squarely to the facts of this case. In the above ruling of the Supreme Court, it was held as follows: