IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 158 of 2010(R) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAJEED.K, ADVOCATE S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 31 YEARS KURUKKAN KUNNATH HOUSE, THOOTHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, SUBORDINATE JUNDICIARY HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE'S RECRUITMENTS COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY SR. ADV. SHRI. K.R.B.KAIMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 158 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th January, 2010. JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioner is that his application for selection to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Services has been rejected by Ext.P5 proceedings of the second respondent. The rejection is on two grounds, firstly that he had produced his enrollment certificate unaccompanied by copy of his L.L.B certificate. The second defect is that the office seal of the Officer attesting his photograph had not been affixed. 2. I have heard Shri. U.K.Devidas who appears for the petitioner and Shri. K.R.B.Kaimal senior counsel, who appears for the respondents. 3. A copy of the application submitted by the petitioner is made available for my perusal. The application shows that the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Perinthalmanna who has attested the photograph of the petitioner has signed on the photograph and affixed his designation seal thereon, identifying the candidate. It is true that his office seal has not been affixed on the application form. Since the petitioner has been properly identified, the omission to affix the office seal may not be so material. The WPC 158/2010 2 second ground on which the petitioner's application has been rejected is for the reason that he has not produced copy of his LLB Certificate along with his enrollment certificate. Since his enrollment certificate has been produced it presupposes the possession of an LLB degree and therefore, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner suffers from any serious defect that justifies the rejection of the same in toto. 4. In view of the above, there will be a direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the preliminary examination that is to be conducted for the selection of the candidates now scheduled to be held on 9.1.2010 provisionally or any other date to which the same may be postponed, pending further orders. The petitioner will approach the Secretary of the Recruitment Committee for necessary action in this regard. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 158/2010 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: