IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20683 of 2010(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANJU VIJAYAN, D/O. SRI. VIJAYAKUMARAN AGED YEARS, ASWATHY, HOUSE NO. 10, VIKAS NAGAR, THIRUMALAVARAM.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULA, KOCHI-31. 2. REGISTRAR, SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MUHAMMED RAEEZ, RUBY NIVAS MUDAVARAM.P.O., KEEZHVARAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. LIJUMOL SHERIF THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, VENMANI.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R6 SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.) GP SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20683/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is a vacancy notification issued by the High Court of Kerala inviting applications for appointment to the post of Munsiff – Magistrate in Kerala Judicial Service. Petitioner was an applicant. She succeeded in the written test and participated in the interview. However, in Ext.P2 select list her name was not included. According to the petitioner, process of selection is vitiated for several reasons, such as in the viva voce, 30% of the total marks was prescribed as cut of mark. According to her, the marks awarded for viva voce was unreasonably low and that the special rules which were followed is against the Shetty Commission Report accepted by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (2002 (4) SCC 247). It is on these grounds the writ petition is filed challenging the vacancy notification and the selection that followed. 2. However, from the pleadings of the petitioner itself it is seen that the very same selection was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).20683/10 2 W.P.(C)s.13749/2008 and 15232/2008. These writ petitions were dismissed and the appeals filed were also dismissed by judgment in W.A.1676/2008 and connected cases, by judgment dated 21.5.2009. Therefore, iInsofar as the selection process initiated by Ext.P1 itself is concerned, that issue is controverted by the judgment referred above. Therefore the challenge in this writ petition has to be rejected. 3. Petitioner has also challenged Ext.P8, a vacancy notification published by the High Court for making appointment to the post of Munsiff – Magistrate. However, there is no averment in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner has made an application in pursuance to Ext.P8. If that be so, the challenge against Ext.P8 notification does not arise for consideration primarily for the reason that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and there cannot be any public interest litigation in service matters. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs