IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36008 of 2009(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBU GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.B.GEORGE, RESIDING AT JASMINE VILLA, THODUVEY ROAD, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HOB'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36008 OF 2009 (R) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 communication issued by the 2nd respondent, informing him that hia application submitted in response to Ext.P1 notification is rejected for the reason that “Invalid 'Non-Creamy Layer Certificate' produced”. 2. By Ext.P1 the respondents invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of Munsiff Magistrate on NCA vacancy of Latin Catholic. The notification specified that the candidate should produce non-creamy layer certificate issued by the competent authority. The last date specified for receipt of application was 30.9.2009. Along with the application petitioner submitted Ext.P3, was creamy layer certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhu dated 23.11.2006. His application was rejected by Ext.P2 for the reason that the certificate produced was an invalid one. On receipt of Ext.P2 communication, petitioner produced Ext.P4, another certificate issued by the Village, Officer, Varkkala along with Ext.P5 and P6 representations requesting for its acceptance. It is stated that there was no response from the respondents and therefore the writ petition is WPC.No.36008 /09 :2 : filed challenging Ext.P2 and seeking consequential reliefs. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 certificate is a valid one issued by the competent authority specified by the Government and therefore the rejection of his application is illegal. 4. However, on behalf of the respondents, learned Senior Counsel submits that, though the petitioner had enclosed Ext.P3 certificate along with the application made by him, Government of Kerala by order dated 25.7.2008 had specified that, non creamy layer certificate will be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue. It is stated that the respondents are bound by the Government Order and that going by the Government Order the certificate produced by the petitioner was not a valid one and it was therefore the application was rejected. It is also stated that the petitioner had produced Ext.P4 certificate along with Exts.P5 and P6. It is stated that these documents were placed before the Recruitment Committee. However,l as the fresh certificate was produced after the last date specified for the submission of applications, the Recruitment Committee declined to accept the same. It is stated that it is in WPC.No.36008 /09 :3 : the aforesaid rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not liable to be interfered with. 5. Admittedly, Ext.P3 certificate produced by the petitioner is not a valid certificate going by the Government Order dated 25.7.2008 referred to above. If that be so, the respondents cannot be faulted for rejecting the application made by the petitioner. Then the other question is whether the respondents were obliged to accept Ext.P4 certificate produced by the petitioner. Admittedly this certificate was produced after the last date specified for the submission of the application. If that be so, that decision of the recruitment committee also cannot be faulted. In these circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.36008 /09 :4 :