Munsiff Magistrate Trainee Not A Judicial Officer, Not Barred For Appointment As District Judge After Seeking Permission: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that where a person had not been a judicial officer either on the date of submission of application for appointment as the District Judge, or on the date of his appointment as such, and he had only been a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, the same would not be a bar for his appointment to the post of District Judge. Justice Anu Sivaraman passed the above order in a petition challenging the appointment of A.V. Telles (3rd respondent), on the ground that he had been undergoing Munsiff-Magistrate training at the Kerala Judicial Academy, and observed, "a reading of the provisions of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules would make it amply clear that the initial induction in the post of Munsiff-Magistrate is as pre-induction trainees and that Ext.P6 is an order deputing the incumbents whose names are contained in Ext.P5 list for the pre-induction training. Since the Special Rules specifically provide for a pre-induction training and a later appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate after completion of the period of training, the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent stood appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate and was therefore a judicial officer cannot be accepted".The Court further observed in this case that the, "3rd respondent had sought the permission of the High Court to be relieved from the training and such request was also granted by the High Court and informed to the Government. The Government had passed Ext.P7 order re-appointing the 3rd respondent who had a lien in the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I, as such". The facts of the case reveals that the petitioner, Unnikrishnan V.V., and the 3rd respondent in the case, A.V. Telles, both of whom had been Additional Public Prosecutors at the time, had applied to the post of District and Sessions Judge. Petitioner had applied under the category No.4 (NCA vacancy of Scheduled Tribe) as well as category No.6 (regular vacancies), while the 3rd respondent had applied only under the category no. 4 vacancy. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent Telles, was appointed as the Munsiff-Magistrate, in pursuance of an application submitted by him. He was thus, undergoing training for the same, at the Kerala Judicial Academy with effect from April 4, 2022. Meanwhile, he had also appeared in the preliminary and mains examinations, as well as the interview for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, after which a Selection list was issued featuring his name as serial no.1 in the category 4, while the petitioner was serial no. 2. It is the petitioner's case that the 3rd respondent, who had ceased to be a practising lawyer on his appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate as on the date of his appointment as District and Sessions Judge is not entitled to such appointment and the petitioner was thus liable to be appointed in his stead. He relied upon the Apex Court decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) in this regard. On the other hand, it was contended by the 2nd respondent, High Court of Kerala, that both the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent had been Assistant Public Prosecutors while applying for the post of the District and Sessions Judge, and they were both included in the select list for appointment to the same under the recruitment No.4/21 (NCA vacancy - ST). It was submitted that the candidate retains a lien over the post in the parent cadre under Rule 8 of Part II KS & SSR, as the appointment that was made was by transfer. It was also argued by the counsels that the 3rd respondent was never appointed as Munsiff-Magistrate and that he was only appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate Trainee for the pre-induction training as provided in the Kerala Judicial Service Rules. "...The provisions of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules are perfectly clear that the training offered is pre-induction training and that only on successful completion of training can a person be appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service", it was added. It was further argued that the 3rd respondent had sought the permission of the High Court for being relieved from the training for Munsiff-Magistrate and to allow him to rejoin the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I, which request was permitted by the administrative committee. It was pointed out by the counsels for the respondents that the Government had also passed an order subsequently, permitting the 3rd respondent to rejoin duty as Assistant Public Prosecutor, and that it was during that time that he had been appointed as the District and Sessions Judge. It was contended that since the 3rd respondent had been a practising lawyer at the time of submission of his application as well, there was no irregularity in his appointment.The Court in this case discerned that the question before it was as to whether the 3rd respondent had any ineligibility for appointment. The Court in this case perused the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, and ascertained that the method of ...

Munsiff Magistrate Trainee Not A Judicial Officer, Not Barred For Appointment As District Judge After Seeking Permission: Kerala High Court

Navya Benny

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Munsiff Magistrate Trainee Not A Judicial Officer, Not Barred For Appointment As District Judge After Seeking Permission: Kerala High Court

Navya Benny

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers