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. 301 of 2010(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIJU MOTTEMMAL, ADVOCATE MOTTEMMAL HOUSE, EDACHERY POST, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 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: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 301 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Munsiff- Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service. The complaint of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P1, his application has been rejected. According to the petitioner, the grounds for rejection of his application are unsustainable. 2. Ext.P1 shows that his application has been rejected for three reasons. First reason is that his application is unaccompanied by the copy of the original LLB Certificate but was accompanied by a Provisional Certificate. The second reason is that there was no office seal of the Attesting Officer on his photograph. The third reason is that there was no office seal of the Attesting Officer on Form D produced by him. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had passed his LLB Degree in 1999 and though he had applied for the issue of LLB Degree Certificate, the same was not obtained. Further, though the office seal of the Attesting Officer is not seen on the Wpc 301/2010 2 photograph, his designation has been clearly mentioned. The absence of office seal on Form D produced by him is also submitted to be only a minor defect. 3. The learned senior counsel who appears for the respondent disputes the contentions of the petitioner. The counsel has produced a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner, for perusal. Referring to the application of the petitioner, it is pointed out that the Provisional Degree Certificate produced by the petitioner was of the year, 2000. Such Provisional Certificates have validity only for a period of six months. However, the petitioner has not tried to apply and obtain the original Degree Certificate though ten years have elapsed after he passed out. In the above circumstances, a direction to the petitioner to produce the original Degree Certificate for verification would also be a futile exercise, it is pointed out. The Officer who has attested the photograph as well as Form D is an official of the KSEB and not a Gazetted Officer, who is the officer authorised to make such attestation as per the stipulations in the notification issued by the respondent. It is therefore contended that the rejection of the Wpc 301/2010 3 application of the petitioner was perfectly in order. 4. I have heard Sri K.B.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as senior counsel Sri K.R.B.Kaimal, for the first respondent. I have also considered the rival contentions. 5. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner's application was unaccompanied by his LLB Degree Certificate. He had produced only a Provisional Certificate issued to him in the year 2000. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, since the petitioner has not obtained a Degree Certificate even to this date, a direction to him to produce the original Degree Certificate for verification would be a futile exercise. Since possession of an LLB Degree Certificate is one of the requirements stipulated by the notification calling for applications, Ext.P1 cannot be found fault with. The other two grounds for rejecting the petitioner's application also cannot be treated as trivial. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the attestation is also defective, having been done by a Non-Gazetted Officer, though such a ground has not been mentioned in Ext.P1. The rejection of the petitioner's application is perfectly in order and is justified. The Wpc 301/2010 4 notification inviting the applications contain clear instructions regarding the manner of submitting the applications. The consequence that is to follow if the application was found to be defective is also clearly mentioned in the said notification. Therefore, Ext.P1 is found to be in accordance with the stipulations contained in the notification. There are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P1 proceedings. The writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Issue copy urgently. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk