IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14442 of 2011(R) ------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- DEEPA RAJAN, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.PRAPHUL, CHITTADICHALIL HOUSE, DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KOCHI - 682031. 2. SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) 2ND FLOOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KOCHI – 682031. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.R.B. KAIMAL (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14442 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Munsiff/Magistrate pursuant to notification issued by the High Court inviting applications for selection to the said post. But by Ext.P2 the High Court informed the petitioner that the petitioner's application has been rejected for the following reasons: “1. There is no designation of the Presiding Officer in Form- A (Certificate of Experience at the Bar, Character and Conduct) produced by you. 2. There is no designation of the Gazetted Officer attesting your photograph in Form-D (Admission Ticket). 3. There is no designation of the Gazetted Officer attesting your photograph in Form-E (Attendance Slip). 4. There is no designation of the Gazetted Officer who attested your photograph affixed to your application.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that all the defects relate to non-mentioning of the designation of the gazetted officer and the Presiding officer (who is the same in this case) in the documents which according to the petitioner is W.P.(C)No. 14442 of 2011 -2- not a serious defect insofar as the seal of the Magistrate who attested all of them and also the name of the officer who attested the photograph is mentioned. Therefore the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioner a chance to cure the defect, accept the application form No.1885 submitted by the petitioner and allow her to appear for the Kerala Judicial Service Examination-2011.” 3. I have heard the learned Standing counsel for the Hon'ble High Court also. During the earlier selection in W.A. No.35/2010 a learned Single Judge took the view that the absence of the designation of the attesting officer in Form 'A' is not a serious defect. Although the writ petition and the writ appeal were ultimately rejected on another ground, the finding that the absence of designation of the attesting officer is not a serious defect has been upheld. In this case, the name of the attesting officer is specifically given below the photograph of the petitioner. The seal of the office is also given in Form A. In the above circumstances, following W.P.(C)No. 14442 of 2011 -3- the stand taken by this court in earlier proceedings, I hold that the defect is not serious enough to reject the application of the petitioner. Therefore Ext.P2 is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/