MUHAMMED RAEES Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant applied for selection to the post of District Judge in the Kerala Higher Judicial service and has come out successfully in the written examination conducted by the High Court of Kerala. He is one among the 45 candidates selected for the oral examination. The appellant had also applied for selection for appointment to the post of Munsiff/Magistrate in the Kerala Subordinate Judicial Service On being finally selected for the post, the Government vide Ext.P3 dated 25.7.2008 appointed him as Munsiff-Magistrate. Pursuant to the appointment the appellant is taken for training by the High Court along with other selected candidates and the appellant is still undergoing the said training. Since the appellant is included in the rank list for interview for selection to the post of District Judge he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent for permission to take part in the oral examination. However the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) High Court vide Ext P6 informed the petitioner that he has ceased to be eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge as he has ceased to be eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge as he has ceased to be a practising Advocate on appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate in the State Judicial Service by the Government. It is against this Order, the appellant filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which this appeal is filed.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the appellant and senior counsel Sri. K.R.B. Kaimal appearing for the High Court. Though Mr. Kaimal requested for time to file a counter-affidavit, counsel for the appellant submitted that interview commenced today and will be over by 12th of this month. Therefore he wanted immediate hearing and disposal of this appeal. We do not think any counter affidavit is required in this matter because the entire facts are revealed by records and the questions raised are pure questions of law. Therefore we heard both the counsel and proceed to dispose of the appeal now itself.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant referred to Ext.P1 notification which prescribes the eligibility for candidates for selection to the post of District Judge. There is no dispute that the candidates must be a practising advocate and should have so practised for a period of not less than 7 years. Under the explanatory note it is further provided that eligibility shall be determined with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of the applications which under Ext.P1 is 30-6-2007. On scrutiny of the application appellant was found eligible and he was allowed to write the written examination. In the written examination he came out successfully and is included in the list of eligible candidates for oral examination. The next question to be considered is whether on joining the service as Munsiff-Magistrate has ceased to be eligible to participate in the balance selection process i.e. interview as held by the Registrar in Ext.P6.