IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 34 of 2010 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.301/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------- SIJU MOTTEMMAL, ADVOCATE, MOTTEMMAL HOUSE, EDACHERY POST, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)//RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. K.R.B. KAIMAL & ADV. SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.34 of 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 8th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was an applicant for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate when applications were invited for the same by the High Court. But, he was served with Ext.P1 communication dated 23.12.2009 informing him that his application is rejected for the three defects noticed therein. The defects noted were - (1) Application unaccompanied by a copy of original LL.B degree certificate, but accompanied by a provisional certificate, (2) No office seal of the attesting officer on his photograph and (3) No office seal of the attesting officer on Form D Certificate. Challenging Ext.P1, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. 2. The appellant would point out that the copy of LL.B degree certificate is insisted to ensure that he has cleared the W.A.No.34/2010. - 2 - LL.B.degree. The said purpose will be served by provisional certificate also. So, that is a minor defect. Further, the persons who have produced provisional certificates are allowed to take part in the examination on getting an affidavit containing an undertaking that they will soon produce the degree certificate and also an explanation stating why they could not produce the copy of the degree certificate. This would show that the first defect noted is only a minor defect. But, the same benefit has not been extended to the appellant, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that absence of office seal in the photograph and in Form D is also a minor and curable defect. Therefore, the decision to reject his application is illegal and so, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be reversed, it is submitted. 3. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that those who could produce only provisional certificates of L.L.B. were allowed to file affidavits agreeing to produce it and explaining the reasons why they could not produce it. It is also submitted that provisional certificate has got validity for six W.A.No.34/2010. - 3 - months only. In the case of the appellant, he cleared the LL.B degree examination 10 years back. In the affidavit, he has stated that he could not apply for the degree certificate for various reasons. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that whatever be that, if that was the only defect, there was possibility of permitting him to participate in the examination, but the other defects were material. They cannot be treated as minor or curable. The application and the Form D specifically states that the seal of the office of the attesting officer should also be affixed. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in this case, the attestation was not done by a Gazetted Officer. It is a mandatory condition. An employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board has done the attestation. It was a defect which was noticed at the time of arguments before the learned Single Judge. That is also a crucial defect, it is pointed out. 4. In this case, even assuming the first defect, that is absence of Degree certificate, is taken as a curable defect, we think, the other defects 2 and 3 are not curable. Now, the application and Form D certificates cannot be W.A.No.34/2010. - 4 - returned to the applicant to get the office seal of the attesting officer. Further, the defect that has come out during the course of argument that the attestation was not done by a Gazetted Officer is also a material defect. Noticing those facts, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Having regard to the above facts, we find no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK.