K PRABHAKARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the original petition apart from seeking to quash Ext. P3 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's representation Ext. P2 which questioned the promotion of the persons referred to therein as Sheristadar, district Court in the Travan core-Cochin area, has also prayed for being promoted as Sheristadar. District Court in the Travan-Cochin area earlier than respondents 3 to 8 in view of his alleged preferential claim based upon law qualification. The petitioner entered service in the Judicial Department of the erstwhile Travancore state on 25-12-1118. He passed the Travancore Account Test in 1119 M. E. , graduated in 1959 and took the B. L. Degree in April 1962. By seniority he was appointed Sheristadar of the Sub-Court in the Travancore-Cochin area in March 1963. The petitioner's case is that ac- cording to the rule in force in the Travancore state and subsequently in the Travancore-Cochin State and also followed in the State of Kerala with reference to the Travancore-Cochin personnel the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Sheristadar District Court in the Travancore Cochin area is Account Test and B. L. degree. According to him, even after the formation of the Kerala State only persons who have passed the account test and taken the B. L. Degree were promoted as Sheristadar of District court in the Travancore-Cochin area and that this was the practice till 20-12-1962.

(2.) WHEN there was no law graduation the second respondent promoted temporarily four persons who did not possess law qualifications but who were seniors to the petitioner and their appointments were regularised on 20-12-1962. The petitioner therefore filed Ext. P2 on 31-5-1963 to review the order of 20-121962 and promote him as Sheristadar in the District Court in the Travancore-Cochin area. Ext. P2 was rejected by Ext. P3 on the sole ground that "the rule which prescribed the law qualification as the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Sheristadar, District Court, in the Travancore-Cochin area, is no longer in force and hence the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment made by the High Court. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. But on behalf of the second respondent the Registrar of the High Court has filed a counter.

(3.) NO doubt the petitioner has founded his petition under Article 226 of the constitution on the ground that the provision fixing the qualification for the post of the Sheristadar, District Court, in the erstwhile Travancore State is in the travancore Civil Court's Guide which came into force on 1-1-1120 (16-8-1944 ). The relevant rules are Rules 314 and 320 (iv) in Chapter I, Part II of the Guide. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent the ground justifying the rejection of Ext. P2 is based on Rule 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Civil Rules of practice, 1956. It is admitted that during the period from 1955 to 20-12-1962 the high Court has been promoting only law graduates as District Court Sheristadars in the Travancore-Cochin area. The reason given by the second respondent is that rule 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Civil Rules of Practice, 1956 was overlooked.