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

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

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

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -