IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 25041 of 2011(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ----------------- RAJU.K., S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, AGED 44 YEARS, AKSHAMRITHA, KARUVATTAMKUZHI, KAREELAKULANGARA.P.O., KEERIKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERISATION), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR(SOBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVOCATE SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON 22/09/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25041 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 7.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.25041 of 2011-R. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Advocate practicing in Mavelikara. He was an applicant for selection to the post of District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, he has submitted an application, according to him duly complying with all the stipulations contained therein. However, as per Ext.P2, he was informed that his application was rejected for the reason that his application was not accompanied by Form-C (Attendance Slip). The petitioner immediately submitted Ext.P3 representation to the 2nd respondent pointing out that his application was to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, accompanied by the Form-C and further pointing out that if his application was not accompanied by the said Form, it was not due to any willful latches or negligence on his part and that he was ready to produce a fresh Form-C WP(C).No.25041/2011-R. 2 (Attendance Slip) and requested that, his application may be considered. Since the written examination is scheduled to be conducted on 23.9.2011, the petitioner has sought urgent orders in this writ petition. 2. The respondents are represented by Senior Counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, who has made available the original application form submitted by the petitioner, together with the accompanying documents. 3. A perusal of the original application form shows that the same is not accompanied by Form-C (Attendance Slip), which is page No.8 of the printed application form. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the entire form is missing, the same could have been missed after the petitioner submitted the application. Though one cannot shut out the possibility of such an eventuality, it is unlikely for Form-C to have got detached after it was submitted, for the reason that page No.8 is to be attached just after page No.7 before attaching the degree certificate and other WP(C).No.25041/2011-R. 3 documents. The chances of an inner page getting detached or lost is remote, when there are outer pages. At the same time, the other reason that the petitioner also could have omitted to attach the inner page looms large. It is not possible by guess work to fix the responsibility for the lost page No.8. on any one. With the available material on record, the fact remains that page No.8 does not form part of the application submitted by the petitioner. 4. The counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to Clause 8(j) of Ext.P1 to point out that page No.8 which contains Form-C is a document that has to accompany the application form. Clause 8(k) stipulates that applications which did not comply with the instructions in the notification shall be rejected. From the above clauses it is clear that, the petitioner had been intimated in advance that an application that does not comply with the instructions would be rejected. The rejection of the petitioner's application is justified by the stipulations in the WP(C).No.25041/2011-R. 4 notification. 5. The counsel for the petitioner further points out that the defect in the petitioner's application is not of a serious nature and that the same is one capable of being condoned. Therefore, he seeks permission to furnish Form- C. I do not find any provision in Ext.P1 for the grant of such permission. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's case was reconsidered pursuant to Ext.P3 and orders have been issued rejecting Ext.P3 also. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned action. For the above reasons the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-