IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 57 of 2010(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LEKHA.R, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. RAJAGOPAL, RESIDING AT “SREELAKOM”, PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. MR.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY, MR.SHYAM RAJ.G. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HON`BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. 2. THE SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE`S RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY MR. K.R.B. KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 57 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioner is that an application submitted by her for selection to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service has been rejected by Ext.P2 proceedings of the respondent. According to the petitioner, she is a person, who is fully qualified for being considered for selection to the notified post. Ext.P2 states three reasons for the rejection of her application. First reason is that her application is unaccompanied by the copy of the original LLB Certificate but accompanied by only a Provisional Certificate. The second reason is that copy of her school record has been attested by a Non-Gazetted officer. The third reason is that the designation of the Presiding Officer has not been specified in Form A. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the original LLB Degree Certificate could not be produced because the same was not issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The attestation of the school records is by the Principal of Vocational Higher Secondary School. Wpc 57/2010 2 According to the counsel, the Principal is an officer authorised to attest the mark list and other school records. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the designation of the attesting officer is not mentioned in Form A, the court seal of the Presiding Officer has been affixed on the said Certificate. The court seal clearly shows that the Certificate has been issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. 3. The senior counsel who appears for the respondents fairly concedes that the non production of the original of the LLB Degree Certificate as well as absence of the designation seal of the Presiding Officer in Form A produced by the petitioner are not of much significance for the reason that they are not attributable solely to solve a lapse on her part. However, it is pointed out that the attestation of the petitioner's school records by a Non-Gazetted officer was a serious deficiency and therefore rejection of the petitioner's application on the said ground could not be condoned in any view of the matter. 4. I have heard Sri T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as senior counsel Sri K.R.B.Kaimal, for the first Wpc 57/2010 3 respondent. I have also considered the rival contentions. 5. Ext.P1 is a notification inviting applications to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service. Clause 15 sets out the manner in which an application for consideration for appointment to the notified post is to be submitted. Sub-clause (j)(iii) provides that copies of the documents specified in the said sub-clause should be attested by a Gazetted Officer. The second document referred to in the said clause is the relevant page of the school record to prove the date of birth. Sub-clause (k) further provides that applications which do not comply with the instructions shall be rejected. Form A which prescribes the form of a Certificate to be produced by the candidates who are practicing Advocates, clearly specifies that name and designation of the officer issuing the Certificate should be mentioned. However, though the designation of the person issuing the Certificate has not been mentioned in Form A, the court seal clearly shows the designation of the officer, who has issued the Certificate. The provisional Degree Certificate produced by the petitioner also is acceptable for the reason that an original Degree Certificate has not Wpc 57/2010 4 been issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University. However, it is to be noted that when Ext.P1 notification clearly stipulates the attestation by a Gazetted Officer, there is no scope for any misunderstanding or confusion as to the designation of the officer by whom an attestation was to be obtained. Though it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Principal of the Vocational Higher Secondary School is equal to a Gazetted Officer, the contention cannot be accepted for the reason that a Vocational Higher Secondary School is an Aided School and the Principal of an Aided School cannot be equated to the post of a Gazetted Officer. Be that as it may, when the notification prescribes a particular mode of attestation, the rejection of the petitioner's application for the reason that the prescribed mode of attestation had not been followed, cannot be found fault with. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision reported in Karnataka PSC V. T.BisseGowda and others (1995 SCC (L&S)1017). In the said case, before the Karnataka PSC, the candidate had produced certain documents that were self attested. Though self attestation was not permissible under the rules applicable, Wpc 57/2010 5 the court found that by another order, the candidates were permitted to effect such an attestation. However, in the present case, no rule or other order has been pointed out which entitles the Principal of an Aided School to make the attestation contemplated by Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, the said decision cannot help the petitioner. 7. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision reported in Uma Shankar Sharma V. The Union of India and others ( AIR 1980 SC 1457). That was a case in which a candidate sought the benefit that was conferred on persons who had represented his University in an Inter University Tournament conducted by the Inter University Sports Board. In the said case, though the candidate had been selected for participation in such a Tournament, he could not actually participate because he had fallen ill. The Supreme Court held that the fact that he had been selected for participation in the said Tournament fulfilled the criteria entitling him to the benefit of concession. The said decision also has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. In the present case, the notification has clearly stipulated that Wpc 57/2010 6 the school records should be attested by a Gazetted Officer in clear and unambiguous terms. The consequence of such non attestation has also been clearly provided in the notification, viz that the application would be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner had clear knowledge of the consequence that has ultimately followed as per Ext.P2. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P2 proceedings of the respondent. The writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Issue copy urgently. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk