IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 27 of 2010()
1. JAYAKRISHNA KAIMAL P.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.27 of 2010
------------------------------
Dated this, the 7th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was a candidate
for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate, when
applications were called for the same by the respondents, as per
Ext.P2 notification. The appellant was a practising lawyer.
Therefore, he should produce experience-cum-conduct
certificate in Form-A annexed to the application. It is common
ground that he did not produce the certificate in that Form.
Instead, he produced a certificate issued by the High Court Bar
Association. The respondents decided to reject his application.
He was informed of the same by Ext.P3 communication, wherein
the reason for rejection is shown as “application by practising
advocates unaccompanied by Form-A certificate to show
experience at the Bar”. Challenging the said communication, the
W.A. No.27/2010 – 2 –
Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, after hearing
both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
a law graduate, even if he is not enrolled and even if he is
unemployed or working elsewhere, can apply for the post of
Munsiff-Magistrate. Therefore, the absence of a certificate to
show experience at the Bar cannot be treated as a valid ground
for rejecting the appellant’s application. This submission is
made, relying on the qualifications prescribed for the post, as
per Ext.P2. The said notification would show that experience at
the Bar is not a mandatory qualification. The very same point
was urged before the learned Single Judge. Form-A certificate is
a certificate showing the experience at the Bar and also the
character and conduct of the incumbent. All the applicants
should produce a conduct certificate. In the case of a practising
lawyer, the conduct certificate would show his experience at the
Bar also. It should be issued by the Presiding Officer of the
Court, where he is practising. Since the appellant claimed that
he is a practising lawyer it was mandatory for him to produce a
W.A. No.27/2010 – 3 –
certificate in Form-A from the Presiding Officer. Taking this
view, the learned Single Judge rejected the aforementioned
contention of the appellant.
3. Having regard to the contents of Form-A, a copy of
which was made available to us by the learned senior counsel
for the respondents, we find it difficult to take a different view.
Form-A requires certification regarding the length of practice
and also regarding the candidate’s character and conduct. It is
mandatory to submit the certificate in Form-A along with the
application, if the applicant is a practising lawyer. Therefore, we
think, the view taken by the respondents, which was affirmed by
the learned Single Judge, cannot be said it to be illegal or
irrational, warranting interference at our hands.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps