Kerala High Court: Candidate Should Be a Practising Lawyer as on the Date of Appointment in the Higher Judicial Service

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The Kerala High Court set aside the appointment of a judicial officer as District & Sessions judge. The notification was calling applications for direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Services. A single-judge bench delivered the judgement of Justice PV Asha.

The Appeal

The petitioner had his name in the rank list for appointment in the Kerala HJS. Nevertheless, she was not granted an appointment as her name was below the respondents in the rank list. The challenge was against the appointment of the respondent, a munsiff-magistrate, as on the date of appointment to the post.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner sought a direction to grant her appointment in place of the respondent. She alleged that the respondent was not eligible to apply for the post being a serving Munsiff Magistrate. The opening was for “practising advocates with” not less than 7 years’ practice”. Clause 6(2) of the notification stated that eligibility of a candidate would be determined regarding “the date of closure of stamp II process”. The date notified for it was 11.01.2018. However, it was later extended to 22.01.2018. On 11.01.2018 the Governor had appointed the respondent as a Munsiff-Magistrate.

She placed reliance on the SC decision in Dheeraj More v. HC of Kerala, wherein the court noted that candidates applying for direct recruitment “would continue to be a practising advocate as on the date of his appointment.” Hence, the respondent was not a practising advocate as on the date as read under Clause 6(2), i.e. 22.01.2018, she argued that he should be ineligible for the post and thus his appointment set aside.

Respondent’s Submissions

The respondent filed counter-affidavits. His submission included proof of seven plus years of practice as on 01.12.2017. Furthermore, he argued that eligibility of a candidate is determined as on the date of final submission of application. In addition to that, he submitted his application before 11.01.2018 itself and did not avail the extension. Thus, he argued that the crucial date for determining eligibility was 27.12.2017, which was the last date for submitting applications.

Since, he was a practising advocate on that date, and hence his appointment as munsiff-magistrate on a later date cannot affect him as such. In the same vein, he also submitted that Dheeraj More’s case is inapplicable to his case. Thus, he explained that this case dealt with candidates who were judicial officers at the time of submission of application. He applied for the post of District Judge before being his appointment as a Munsiff-Magistrate.

Court’s Observations

The court agreed to the contentions that his appointment as a munsiff began only on 12.02.2018, and so, even on the extension of date of closure of step II process from 11.01.2018. to 22.01.2018.

Petitioner continued to be an advocate as on the cut-off date. However, the court placed reliance on Dheeraj More’s case. In that judgement, the court ruled that apart from the cut-off date, the applicant must not be in the legal service or other services of the Union or State at the time of appointment.

The applicant must be practising while applying on the cut-off/appointment date—the case of Vijaykumar Mishra v. HC of Judicature at Patna and ors. Where the court had ruled that applicants who entered legal service during the process of selection could attend the interview without tendering resignation, was overruled in Dheeraj More’s case.

Court’s Ruling

Thus, the court ordered the respondent’s order to be set aside. Further, the court directed the appointment of the next candidate in the rank list who has been in continuous practice for seven years.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -