Kerala High Court
Saritha.A.A vs The Registrar (Administration) on 26 May, 2011
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13422 of 2011(R)
1. SARITHA.A.A,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION),
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :26/05/2011
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.13422 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The Petitioner is a lawyer practicing in this Court. The High Court invited applications for the Kerala Judicial Services Examination 2011, for selecting candidates for the post of Munsiff - Magistrate. Two notifications were issued, one for General Recruitment and another for recruitment for NCA vacancies. Petitioner applied for both. The application of the petitioner for NCA vacancies was rejected on the ground that the second page of the application form is not in the form prescribed in the notification inviting applications. The petitioner challenges the rejection of the application on the ground that although by mistake she has included the second page of the application form for General Recruitment, for applying for the NCA vacancies, substantially the forms are same and therefore the defect is curable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) To issue a writ or any other order or direction quashing Exhibit P1;
(ii) To issue a writ a mandamus or any other order or direction to the respondent to rectify the error in both the applications submitted by the petitioner, ie, Kerala Judicial Services Examination-2011(NCA Vacancy) and Kerala Judicial Services Examination-2011,
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is eligible to sit in the ensuing Kerala Judicial Services Examination (NCA vacancy) Examination scheduled on 29.05.2011 and allow the petitioner to sit in the Examination."W.P.(C)No.13422 of 2011 2
2. A counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent where the stand taken is that the defect is not curable. The application form supplied along with the notification inviting applications has been produced as Ext.R1(b) and application submitted by the petitioner is produced as Ext.R1(c). The contention is that the information to be supplied in page No.2 for N.C.A vacancies and general recruitment are not substantially the same. It is also contended that in the notification inviting applications it is specifically stipulated that the prescriptions and stipulations in the notification are to be strictly adhered to and applications which do not conform to each and every stipulation in the notification are liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that similar rejection has been upheld by this court in W.P.(C) No.60/2010 confirmed in W.A. No.27/2010 and in W.P. (C) No.57/2010 confirmed in W.A. No.35/2010, in respect of earlier selections.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. A comparison of the application form accompanying the notification and the application submitted by the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that the page No.2 differs substantially insofar as the information called for are different in many respects. I am of the opinion that in such W.P.(C)No.13422 of 2011 3 examinations the applicant should take minute care to see that all stipulations in the notifications are strictly adhered to. If any application is defective in any respect the same is liable to be rejected as held by this Court in the decisions referred to by the respondent, which only has been done by the respondent in the case of the petitioner. Therefore I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE kkj