K.H. SIRAJ versus HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 23-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.H. SIRAJ 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND ANR. 
MAY 23, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Kerala Public Service Act, 1968- -Section 2-Kerala State subordinate 
C Service Rules, 1958: Rules 14, 15 & 17/Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 
1991; Rule 7/Notification dated 26.3.2001; Cl.JO: State Judicial Service 
Examination-Appointment of Munsif Magistrate-Fixation of minimum 
cut-off marks-Necessity of-Rules of reservation--Violation of-Single 
Judge of the High Court declaring selection of certain candidates illegal--
D 
Reversed by the High Court-- On appeal, Held: Rule 7 confers powers on 
the High Court to select suitable persons to serve as judicial officer-Power 
so coriferred enables the High Court to select best available talent for 
manning judiciary----C'ondition for obtaining minimum cut-off marks in 
written/oral Examination not irrelevant--High Court could evolve its own 
procedure to select suitable candidates-Thus. power conferred under the 
E 
Rules justified the prescribed minimum eligibility condition-- -Since the 
procedure so evolved is germane and best suited to achieve the object, it 
is not proper to scuttle the same as beyond its power--Such power is vested 
on the High Court constitutionally for the purpose of administration of the 
subordinate judiciary-Constitution of India, 1950--Artic/es 233, 234 & 
F 
235-Kerala High Court Rules-Rule 148. 
Testing of suitability of a candidate-Oral test/Interview-Necessity 
of-Held: lntellactual and personal qualities of a candidate could 
appropriately be assessed by conducting oral test. 
G 
Bench marks/cw-off marks-Fixation of-Held: Jn order to select the 
best amongst the available candidates, fixation of Benchmarks is necessary. 
Rule of reservation--Applicability of-Held· In terms of rule 15, slots 
had mandatorily tu be filled up by open merit candidates if no suitable 
H candidate from reserved categories available -Hence, filling up of such 
790 
K.H. SIRAJ v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA 
791 
vacancies from candidates other. than reserved categories permissible 
A 
under the Rules. 
Validity of seleN. list-Challenged by unsuccessful/ineligible 
candidates-Held: IneligilJle candidates could not challenge the validity of 
the select list. 
Selection and appointment-Challenge to-Estoppel-Applicability 
of-Held: Principle of estoppel applicable since appellants participated in 
the examination with knowledge of rules and procedural requirements. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: 
Writ Petition-Absence of necessary parties in the array of parties-
Effect of-Held: The petition falls on this ground. 
Disposal of appeals on the same issue by the High Court-Not filing 
of appeal against-Effect of-Held: the order of the High Court became 
final and opeartes as res-judicata to the appeals in question-Principle of 
Res-judicata. 
The High Court ofKerala invited applications for the appointment 
for the post of Munsif-Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Services. The 
appellants/petitioners appeared in the Written test. They were called for 
an interview before the Board. The select list was issued by the High 
Court. The appellants challenged the select list alleging that the selection 
was done in violation of the principles and Rules relating to reservations. 
They also moved an application for staying the training and appointment 
of candidates from the select list till the disposal of the writ petition. 
However, the High Court commenced the training of the last 20 
candidates from the select list. The single Judge of the High Court 
disposed of the original petition declaring the appointment of certain 
candidates as illegal and consequently restrained respondent Nos. 1 & 
2 (the High Court and the State ofKerala) from filling up the said posts 
from the select list The Respondents preferred an appeal. The Division 
Bench of the High Court by its interim order stayed the order of the 
single Judge. Against the order of the Division Bench, the appellant 
preferred Special Leave Petition before this Court. This Court disposed 
of the petition after recording the statement of the respondents that in 
the event of writ appeal being allowed, the appointments so made would 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
be quashed and appointed candidates would not claim equity on the 
ground that they have joined the service earlier. Later, the Division 
Bench of the High Court disposed of the petition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.