CASE TITLE:
Mr. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala
DATE OF ORDER:
12 January 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Anu Sivaraman
SUBJECT
The Kerala High Court in the present case held that the embargo contained in Dheeraj Mor's case is specifically with regard to the selection of persons who have been appointed as Judicial Officers as District and Sessions Judges in the quota set apart for direct appointment from the Bar.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner and the 3rd respondent had applied for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. They were both working as Assistant Public Prosecutor at the time of their application.
- However, in the meantime, it is submitted that 3rd respondent was appointed a Munsiff Magistrate and was undergoing training for the same.
- The 3rd respondent then appeared for the entire selection process for the post of District and Sessions Judge. He went through all the three stages of preliminary examination, mains examination and the interview.
- He was finally proved to be worthy of the said post and his name appeared as serial no. 1 on the selection list.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent no longer continued to be a practicing lawyer in view of his being appointed a Munsiff Magistrate.
- That if we rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Dheeraj More v. High Court of Delhi[(2020) 7 SCC 401], it can be concluded that the 3rd respondent was ineligible for appointment to the post of a District and Sessions Judge.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent contended that since the appointment of the third respondent as a Munsiff Magistrate was by way of transfer, he retained a lien over his previous post.
- It was further suggested that the 3rd respondent was only appointed as a Munsiff Magistrate Trainee for the purposes of his pre-induction training and only on successful completion of his training would he have been appointed as a Munsiff Magistrate.
- It was also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the 3rd respondent sought High Court’s permission to be relieved from his training and to allow him to join the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the 3rd respondent had any in eligibility for appointment as District and Sessions Judge?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- While adjudicating upon the matter, the Court observed that the ban imposed by the Dheeraj Mor’s Case is limited only to the cases of selection of persons who have been appointed as Judicial Officers as District and Sessions Judge in the quote set apart for direct appointment from the Bar.
- The Court also observed that the 3rd respondent was merely a trainee during the said period. After a careful perusal of the rules of Kerala Judicial Services the Court concluded that they make it clear that the initial induction in the post of Munsiff- Magistrate is as a pre-induction trainee.
- The Court held that in view of the above observations, the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent stood appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate and was therfore a Judicial Officer for the purposes of the embargo set out in Dheeraj Mor’s Case can not be upheld.
- The Court further observed the ruling of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar & Ors. In this case, the petitioner had applied for the appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. However, since the selection process for the same were for the time being stayed, the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge in Uttar Pradesh and was also selected. Later on, when the selection process for Additional District and Sessions Judge resumed, the petitioner sought the permission of the High Court and participated in the selection process. On his selection, he applied for resignation as a Civil Judge and joined the new post. The Apex Court upheld his appointment in this case.
CONCLUSION
Observing the view taken by the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Verma v. The State of Bihar & Ors. and other facts of the case, the Court concluded that the 3rd respondent was not a judicial officer either on the date of his application or on the date of his appointment asa District and Sessions Judge. As such, the embargo laid down in Dheeraj Mor’s case is inapplicable in the present case.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
