IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2011 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13533 of 2011(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- AKASH M.S., MANKEEZHAYIL HOUSE, PULIKUTTISSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686015. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 3. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY REGISTRAR (GENERAL), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 13533 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, on N.C.A vacancies, for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P5 citing the reasons that documents submitted along with the application were not attested by a Gazetted Officer. It is challenging Ext.P5 and seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to cure the defect in the application pursuant to Ext.P1 application and re-submit the same that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The reasons for rejection is evident from Ext.P5 as hereunder:- “1. The Form B (Certificate of Character and Conduct) produced by you is not issued by a Gazetted Officer. 2. Your photograph in Form - C (Admission Ticket) is not attested by a Gazetted Officer. 3. Your photograph in Form D(Attendance Slip) is not attested by a Gazetted Officer. 4. Your photograph affixed to your application is not attested by a Gazetted Officer.” WPC.No.13533/2011 : 2 : In view of the reasons assigned in Ext.P5 it is only appropriate to refer to the specific stipulations in Ext.P1 notification. Paragraphs 14(d) 14(g) and 14(j)(ii) reads thus:- 14............ (d) Candidates should read carefully this Notification and all the columns of the application form, before filling them. ........................................ (g) A passport size photograph of the candidate recently taken and duly attested by a Gazetted Officer shall be affixed on the application at the place indicated, on the Admission Ticket and Attendance Slip. (j) (ii)Admission Ticket and Attendance Slip in Forms 'C' & 'D' duly filled up with the photographs attested by a Gazetted Officer. Ext.P2 is the prescribed format of the application for selection of Munsiff Magistrates (N.C.A Vacancies). The petitioner is a practising Lawyer. The certificate of experience at the Bar, Character and Conduct in the case of practising lawyers was to be attested by the Presiding Officer of the Court and certificate of character and Conduct in Form No.B was to be attested by a Gazetted Officer, in terms of Ext.P2. Apart from the instructions in Paragraph 14(g) at the relevant places in the application form as also in Forms C and D sufficient indications have been given regarding the requirement of attestation by a Gazetted Officer. Despite such stipulations WPC.No.13533/2011 : 3 : the petitioner got the certificate and photographs mentioned in Ext.P5 attested by the Principal of an aided College. In paragraph 7 of the Writ petition it is stated thus:- “The petitioner's photograph affixed in his application is not attested by a Gazetted officer. The petitioner has obtained the signature and seal of the Principal, C.M.S College (Aided College) Kottayam on the certificates and photographs mentioned above. This has happened due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner.” 3. It is thus obvious from the recital in paragraph 7 itself that, even according to the petitioner, he had failed to put in an application in accordance with Ext.P1 notification. However, the contention of the petitioner is that it was an inadvertent mistake and it would not and could not affect his eligibility to participate in the selection process. The sum and substance of the petitioner is that the defects in the application are insignificant and inconsequential and therefore, they are curable. I am afraid, I cannot countenance with the aforesaid contentions in the light of a Division Bench Judgment in W.A No.35 of 2010. In the context of the said contentions Paragraph 5 of the judgment in W.A No.35/2010 assumes relevance. It reads thus:- “We heard Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, the learned senior counsel who appeared for the respondents. He made available photocopy of the application form submitted by the appellant. We find that the photo of the appellant in the first page of the application is attested by the Principal of WPC.No.13533/2011 : 4 : B.J.S.M. Madathil Vocational Higher Secondary School. Her Higher Secondary School Examination certificate is also attested by the said Principal. We notice that the various certificates produced by her to prove the educational qualifications were also attested by the said Principal. The notification specifically stipulates that attestation should be done by a Gazetted Officer. This is not a defect which could be cured by returning the application to the applicant in order to get the copies attested by a Gazetted Officer, or by permitting her to supply new copies of certificates attested by a Gazetted Officer. In view of that position, we find nothing wrong with the view taken by the respondents or the learned single judge. When the application is not submitted i accordance with the notification, we cannot take any lenient view, as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. Only valid applications can be entertained by the respondents. We cannot dilute the rigour of the rules concerning these matters.” In the light of the said judgment an application which is not submitted in accordance with the notification, cannot be treated as a valid application to be entertained by the respondents. In view of the admitted position that the documents referred to in Ext.P5 were not attested by a Gazetted Officer in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2 and in the light of the judgment in W.A No.35/2010, this writ petition is liable to fail. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge