IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15024 of 2011(R) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE T.K.AYYAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS,RESIDING AT ARYA BHAVAN, ARYAD NORTH.P.O,ALAPPUZHA AND NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY,AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ON DEPUTATION FROM THE POST OF BENCH CLERK-MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARA PUTHRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP:BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 2. REGISTRAR(SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA,COCHIN,PIN-682031. 3. REGISTRAR,(ADMINISTRATION)(SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE), HIGH COURT OF KERALA,COCHIN,PIN-682031. FOR R2-3 : ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL,SC,KTDFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: smvd S. SIRI JAGAN, J --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.15024 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a law graduate who aspires for selection to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service. Pursuant to the notification inviting applications, issued by the High Court, the petitioner applied. The petitioner's application has been rejected by Ext.P3 on the ground that the petitioner's application is not in the prescribed format. The petitioner would contend that the petitioner's application is in the prescribed format and the only difference is that instead of using separate sheet for Form D, admission ticket, the petitioner used the opposite side of the same sheet used for Form C. The petitioner submits that the same is not a defect, which qualifies for rejection of the application itself. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records culminated in the issuance of Ext. P3 order and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to appear for the preliminary examination conducted pursuant to Ext. P1 notification. iii. Issue a writ declaring that the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is legal and proper & in conformity with the prescribed format. iv. Issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the nature and course of the proceedings. WP(C) No. 15024 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the High Court points out that this is a very material defect because Form D is the admission ticket, which has to be sent to the petitioner for enabling the petitioner to write the written test. Therefore that has to be necessary in a separate sheet. In the petitioner's case, that is not in a separate sheet, but in the opposite side of form C service certificate, which has to be retained as part of the application itself. The the learned standing counsel submits that this is a defect which cannot cured at all and the defect which goes to the root of the matter. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I have no other go but to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court. As rightly pointed out by him the admission ticket has to be forwarded to the candidate, which can be done only if it is in a separate sheet. Admittedly in the petitioner's case, it is not in a separate sheet. If the admission ticket submitted by the petitioner is to be sent to the petitioner then form C service certificate would also have to be forwarded to him, which has to be retained by the High Court. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. smvd