High Court Bound To Follow Rules: Kerala HC Quashes 'Arbitrary' Selection Process Of Temporary Munsiff-Magistrates [Read Judgment]

The Division bench, also comprising of Justice TV Anilkumar, was considering a writ appeal against a single bench judgment that had quashed an Official Memorandum calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Temporary Munsiff-Magistrate. The challenge was essentially directed towards prescription of an age limit of 52 years as on 1.6.2018 in order to be eligible to apply though the Rules did not impose any such restriction.

Agreeing with the Single bench view, the bench said that the amendment to the Rules was prospective by notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 14.1.2019 whereas the unamended Rules covered the field when the recruitment was in process to the post of Temporary Munsiff-Magistrate. The court said:

"Both Ext.P3 Official Memorandum and Ext.P4 Guidelines issued by the High Court omitted the category specified in Rule 5(3)(viii) of the unamended Rules which was in vogue at the time of its issue. Ext.P3 Official Memorandum dated 18.6.2018 also stipulated that the applicant should not have completed 52 years of age as on 1.6.2018 which is totally absent in the Rules. It is the Governor of Kerala who is the appointing authority for Munsiff-Magistrate and who in consultation with the High Court has made the Rules which need to be scrupulously followed. Any deviation therefrom attracts the vice of arbitrariness rendering the entire selection process invalid as has been rightly noticed by the learned single Judge in the judgment impugned."

With regard to the contention that Rule 9 of the Rules empowered the High court to appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the Rules temporarily in public interest owing to an emergency, the bench said:

"Firstly, the exceptional power to appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the Rules temporarily can be exercised in the case of one or two candidates and not for a mass recruitment of 16 in number. Secondly, the files of the Administrative Committee did not reveal any decision having been taken to indicate that it is necessary to depart from the Rules in public interest owing to an emergency. The Statement filed by the High Court and the Registrar in the writ petition only stated that the Government has been addressed to amend the Rules to maintain the dignity of the post. The High Court as any other institution was bound to follow the Rules and the Administrative Committee shall not sit in appeal over the decisions taken on the judicial side."

The bench also rejected the contention of the High Court administration questioning the locus of one of the petitioner which is a civil judicial staff organisation. It dismissed the appeal holding that the single bench was righting in finding that the process of selection of the Temporary Munsiff-Magistrates was not in accordance with the Rules and hence arbitrary.

Read Judgment