Fathima T.M. v. Secretary, Munsiff-Magistrate Recruitment Committee, High Court of Kerala & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/30TH JYAISHTA 1935 WP(C).No. 15021 of 2013 (R) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ## ------------- FATHIMA T.M., AGED 30 YEARS THOTTUMKAL HOUSE, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM NOW RESIDING AT MANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O. POOKKATTUPADY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683563. BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALEESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. ## 2. THE HIGH COUR OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. ## 3. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. BY S.C. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.15088 OF 2013 AND CONNECTED CASES ON 20-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15021 of 2013 (R) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. REC4-5384/13 WITH RECRUITMENT NO.3/2013 DATED 21-3-2013 INVITED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-6-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT DOWN LOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** --------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)Nos.15021, 15088, 15104, 15135, 15143, 15265, 15268, 15328 & 15533 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------------Dated 20[th] June, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in all these writ petitions applied for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service pursuant to the notification dated 21.3.2013 issued by the first respondent therefor. In view of the fact that all the petitioners are similarly situated and are having common grievances with respect to the rejection of their respective applications these writ petitions were jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In W.P.(C)No.15021 of 2013 the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of leaving column 26(b) in the application blank. In W.P.(C)Nos.15104, 15135, 15143 & 15268 of 2013 also the applications submitted by the respective petitioners were rejected on the same ground. In W.P.(C)No.15088 of 2013 the application was rejected as the petitioner failed to fill up column 26(g). In W.P.(C) No.15265 of 2013 the application submitted by the first petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not filled up columns 24(a) and 24(b) and the application of the second petitioner was rejected on the ground of leaving one or more of columns in 26 unfilled to precise, column 26(b). In W.P.(C)No.15328 of 2013 the petitioner left column WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 2 26(g) blank and filled up column 26(a) with the word `No' and columns 26(b) to 26(e) with the abbreviate form of `Not Applicable' viz., `N.A.'. In W.P.(C)No.15533 of 2013 the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of leaving one or more questions in column 26 unfilled and in fact, the petitioner left the column 26(b) unfilled. 3. The questions under columns 26(a) to (g) are incorporated in the application as such with a view and purpose to collect details regarding the prospective applicants and to weed out such of the candidates who are totally ineligible for appointment by virtue of possession of any such antecedent which would entail disqualification for selection as Munsiff-Magistrate. It is to be noted that such details were asked under columns 26 (a) to(g) in relation to the application invited for filling up the general vacancies and in relation to NCA vacancies exactly similar questions were put under columns 24(a) to (g). As noticed hereinbefore, it is the action on the part of the respective applicants in leaving questions in one or more sub divisions of column 26 viz., (a) to (g) or in column 24 viz., (a) to (g) unanswered/inappropriately answered that resulted in the rejection of their respective applications. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also for a proper consideration of the issues involved in WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 3 these cases, it is only proper and profitable to quote the relevant columns and to have a clear idea on the detailed antecedents required to be furnished by the candidates as against such columns. Column 26 in the application for general vacancies reads thus:- |26|(a) Have you been debarred from recruitment in<br>Public Services? If yes, give details|(a) Have you been debarred from recruitment in<br>Public Services? If yes, give details|(a) Have you been debarred from recruitment in<br>Public Services? If yes, give details||| |---|---|---|---|---|---| ||(b) Have you been dismissed from service of Central or<br>any State Government or from any Quasi-<br>Government Institution or by Government owned<br>Company or Corporation or any Local Self<br>Government Institution? If yes, give details.||||| ||(c) Have you been prosecuted for any criminal offence?||||| ||If yes, give particulars.||||| ||Case Nos.|Name of Court/Police Station||Offence Charged|Status of the Case| ||||||| ||(d) Is any Criminal case pending against you?||||| ||If yes, give particulars.||||| ||Case Nos.|Name of Court/Police Station||Offence Charged|Status of the Case| ||||||| ||(e) Is any Civil proceedings pending or disposed off, instituted by or against||||you?| ||If yes, give particulars||||| ||Case Nos.|Name of Court|State whether<br>Plaintiff/Defendant|Nature of Case|Status of the Case| ||||||| ||(f) Were you subjected to any proceedings for<br>professional misconduct by the Bar Council? If so,<br>the outcome of the same.||||| ||(g) Is any disciplinary proceedings/ vigilance enquiry<br>initiated or contemplated against you? If so, give<br>particulars.||||| WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 4 As noticed hereinbefore, questions under columns 24(a) to (g) are exactly similar to those under columns 26(a) to (g). Details were to be furnished in all the columns by a candidate answering the concerned questions in the affirmative. 4. The contention of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that leaving one or more of the aforesaid sub divisions in column 24/column 26 ought not to have been taken as fatal enough to entail rejection of the applications. To buttress the said contention the petitioners relied on the common judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.10585 and 11170 of 2013. The petitioners therein were applicants to the post of District and Sessions Judge by direct recruitment in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services. It is submitted that the same was taken up in appeal in W.A.No.677 of 2013 by the respondents therein. Initially, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was stayed, but, subsequently the interim order was modified as per order dated 7.5.2013. In W.P.(C)No.15533 of 2013 the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.10585 and 11170 of 2013 and the copy of the modified interim order dated 7.5.2013 by the Division Bench in W.A.No.677 of 2013 have been produced respectively as Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioners herein relied on the said judgment and the WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 5 order passed by this Court to canvass the position that leaving certain columns blank, or inappropriate filling of certain columns in an application submitted responding to a notification for appointment to a post in the Kerala Judicial Service cannot be said to be that much fatal to entail rejection of the applications. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners inter alia seek for orders directing the respondents to restore their applications and to participate in the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 21.3.2013 and permit them to partake in the examination to be held on 23.6.2013 for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Considering the urgency of the matter and paucity of time the learned Senior counsel for the respondents was orally directed to produce the concerned applications submitted by the respective petitioners in all these writ petitions and pursuant to the same copies of all such applications were made available for perusal. WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 6 7. As noticed hereinbefore, the core contention of the petitioners is that the action in leaving blank one or more of columns 26(a) to (g) or columns 24(a) to (g), shall not result in rejection of applications as it cannot be construed as fatal to have such an impact. It is to substantiate the said contention that Exts.P4 judgment and P5 order are relied on. Per contra the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents is that in the notification itself appropriate instructions including the one conveying clearly the consequence of noncompliance with the instructions as rejection of the application have been given and therefore, the action in rejecting the applications calls for no interference. 8. In the context of rival submissions it is relevant to refer to the instructions in paragraphs 15(f), (g) and (m) of the notification in question and they read thus:- ## “ **15. How to apply** : - (f) Candidates should read carefully this Notification and all the columns of the application form, before filling them. - (g) All the columns should be filled up by the candidate in his/her own hand. **Do not fill up any column by dashes or dots or any other marks or leave any column blank** . If any column is not WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 7 applicable, write `not applicable' against that particular column. - (m) Applications which do not comply with the instructions shall be rejected.” It is thus obvious that the candidates were instructed to read carefully the notification and all the columns in the application, before filling them. It is also specifically instructed thereunder not to leave any of the columns blank or to fill up any of the columns either by dotes or dashes or by any other marks. Above all, the said instructions under paragraph 15(g) was given in black, bold letters with underline so as to draw the attention of the applicants and the fact that the failure to comply with the instructions is a certain rejection of the application was given in paragraph (m). It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that such instructions were given in black, bold letters with underline taking into account the relevance and importance of the details intended to be gathered from the respective candidates regarding their antecedents and other crucial factors under various columns in the application. It is further submitted that considering the fact that the applications have been invited for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service it cannot be said that such details are not crucial or having no relevance at all. In fact, such details are very much WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 8 required to be furnished as furnishing such details would enable the respondents to weed out candidates totally ineligible to partake in the selection process on account of possession of disqualificative factor/factors. Elimination of absolutely ineligible candidates on account of incurrence of disqualificative factor or bad antecedent at the incipient stage of a selection process is not impermissible. Considering the fact that valuation of answer scripts of candidates are made by judicial officers and the interview, as part of the selection process is to be conducted by sitting Judges who constitute the interview board, such weeding out would also save unnecessary wastage of invaluable judicial time. At any rate, such steps in any selection process cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal and such scrutiny and weeding out are permissible in law. The petitioners could not bring to my attention any provision or authority to the contrary. Taking note of the details required to be furnished as against such columns, the post concerned and also the duties and functions to be discharged by a selectee to the aforesaid post it cannot be said that failure to furnish such details regarding the antecedents cannot have any consequence at all and I am of the considered view that it depends upon the nature of the details sought for. WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 9 9. The question to be considered is whether rejection of application should be the invariable consequence in all these cases. In the context of the contentions, I may consider the contentions made by the petitioners relying on Exts.P4 and P5 viz., the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.10585 and 11170 of 2013 and the modified interim order dated 7.6.2013 in W.A.No.677 of 2013. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.10585 & 11170 of 2013 were applicants for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services and virtually, they had filled up all the columns in their respective applications. 10. Taking into account the details required to be collected under the queries made in and vide column No.13 and the manner in which they were answered and also the answers given against the other queries in their applications, the learned Single Judge held that the mistake in filling up column No.13 in the application form could not have been taken a serious defect warranting rejection of the application, if the concerned candidate is otherwise qualified. The reasoning given thereunder is that the answers given in column 19 of the concerned applications could be considered as an indicator to know the antecedents of the candidates which are required to be furnished under column 13. WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 10 In other words, the learned Single Judge was of the view that a conjoint reading of the details furnished by the concerned candidate in their respective applications was sufficient to gather the details required to be furnished under column 13. Consequent to such findings further directions were issued as per Ext.P4. As noticed hereinbefore, initially the operation of the judgment was stayed in W.A.No.677 of 2013. But, then, it is discernible from Ext.P5 that the initial order staying the operation of Ext.P4 judgment was later, modified by the Division Bench and the petitioners in those writ petitions were permitted to partake at the selection process subject to the result of the writ appeal. In the circumstances, I am inclined to proceed with the considerations of the common questions raised in these writ petitions. The questions to be considered are whether the informations furnished by the concerned applicant in the application would indicate either of the expected answers, whether they are capable of answering the queries or details called for under columns 24 or 26, whether details given elsewhere in the application are sufficient to return an answer to the queries or details to be furnished under different columns in 24 or 26 which were left unfilled or inadequately filled, by the petitioners and whether leaving one or more of the columns in 24 or 26 or inappropriate answers against any such column should entail rejection of application. As stated earlier, WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 11 copies of the applications of all the petitioners are made available by the learned Senior counsel. In short, essentially, the question is whether the details required to be furnished as against column 24(a) to (g)/26(a) to (g) which were left unfilled/inappropriately filled could be gathered from the rest of the details given by the candidate concerned elsewhere in the concerned application. While considering the said question, the aspect as to whether the details required to be furnished under the relevant concerned column/columns, if furnished, would indicate the disqualificative position or otherwise of the concerned candidate, is also to be looked into. If the answer is in the affirmative and those details are discernible from the entries elsewhere in the application the applicant would not incur any disqualification as regards his/her candidature, and according to me, the action in leaving some or more of the columns in 24 or 26 blank shall not entail the extreme step of rejection of applications for the simple reason that the very intention in providing such columns in the application is only to gather such relevant informations/details relating the concerned candidate. Even if such details are not furnished properly against the concerned column but, discernible from the entries made elsewhere in the very application itself then it is inappropriate to treat the lapse on the part of the applicant as fatal enough to entail rejection of his candidature. I may hasten to add that I may not be WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 12 understood to have held that the respondents have acted illegally or that the said queries in those columns were irrelevant. It is always proper only to fill up applications for offering candidature for appointment to the post of Munsiff or Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service fully and properly after bestowing proper attention to the instructions in the notification. I have already adverted to the details which are sought to be gathered under columns 24(a) to (g) and 26(a) to (g). Considering the post to which selection is going to be effected and also the fact that the applications are invited from candidates who possesses Law Degree and also duties to be discharged by the selectees on appointment, it cannot be said that the failure to furnish such crucial details anywhere in the application cannot be said to be fatal. Such details are decisive factor regarding his/her disqualificative position or otherwise in regard to the eligibility. I am of the considered view that taking into account the aforesaid aspects such failure has to be taken either as reluctance to reveal the real position regarding such aspects or suppression of relevant materials, for reasons best known to the concerned candidate. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.15533 of 2013 argued that the failure on the part of the petitioner in leaving all or any of the columns blank in the application have any WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 13 relevance or adverse consequence at all, at this stage of the selection process. It is also contended that improper answering by using the words 'not applicable' or 'not applicable' in its abbreviate form or even leaving the said questions unanswered are not fatal to result in rejection of the application. The learned counsel further contended that even if the application carry such answers suggesting possession of disqualificative factor as to the eligibility it cannot have any adverse impact on his/her candidature at the initial stage of the selection process and they would assume relevance only at the time of consideration for appointment in case of selection of the concerned candidate. The said contention would appear to be acceptable as it got foundation in the provisions under Rule 10(b) of Part II of Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules which reads thus:- “ **Rule 10 (b)** :No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, unless-- (i)he satisfies the appointing authority that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity rendering him unfit for such service; (ii)that he does not have more than one wife living or, if the person is a woman, that she is not married to any person who has a wife living; and (iii)the State Government are satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; [Provided that, before the Government are satisfied of the character and antecedents of a person WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 14 selected/advised for appointment by direct recruitment, the Appointing Authority may appoint him/her temporarily under clause (i) of sub-rule (a) of rule 9 of these rules subject to the condition that his/her appointment shall be terminated without notice if Government are not satisfied of his/her character and antecedents on subsequent verification and that he/she shall be eligible for appointment in regular service in accordance with the Rules only if his/her character and antecedents are found satisfactory on subsequent verification].” 12. The question, therefore, is whether verification of character and antecedents of an applicant is possible and permissible only when he/she becomes a selectee in respect of that particular post? The pith of the argument is that the question of verification of antecedents would arise only if an applicant is selected for appointment and at the time of consideration of the selectee for appointment. I have no hesitation to hold the said contention as untenable for more than one reason. Weeding out of candidates by an appointing authority is not impermissible in law. In **Minimol v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit reported in 2010(1) KLT 74** , a Division Bench of this Court held that while making selection, appointing authority could undoubtedly regulate its procedure for restricting the number of candidates at a preliminary selection. Further it was held that any such procedure of elimination must be fair and reasonable and answer WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 15 requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The various paragraphs in the notification referred specifically hereinbefore would reveal that the prospective candidates were given sufficient indication about the requirement to go through instructions carefully before filling up the application, about the mandate for filling up all columns appropriately and about the prohibition of filling up the application by dots and dashes and leaving columns blank. The impact of failure to adhere to the instructions as aforesaid as rejection of application was also clearly mentioned in the instructions. It is in this context that the details required to be furnished to be looked into. If the particular details required to be furnished against a particular column is capable of deciding the disqualificative factor for being a qualified applicant leaving it blank or its inappropriate filling up cannot be inconsequential and inevitably it should visit with the invariable impact of rejection of application. The action in leaving such columns blank can be construed as reluctance to disclose the relevant details if not as a purposeful or wilful evasion. Filling up of such columns by dashes or dots or inappropriately or inadequately shall also entail rejection of the application. The procedure thus adopted to find out and eliminate totally ineligible to be a candidate for the selection by virtue of having a disqualficative factor, viz., looking into such relevant details in the WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 16 relevant columns relating antecedents cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable or incapable of answering the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In short, the said procedure is perfectly permissible in law. As noticed hereinbefore, all the columns under 24 and 26 were given with a definite purpose to collect details. None of the candidates could contend that they had not gone through instructions before filling up the application. Bearing in mind the conclusions arrived at hereinbefore, I will consider the entitlement of the petitioners to the reliefs sought for in each of these writ petitions. ## **W.P.(C)Nos.15021, 15104, 15135, 15143 & 15268 of 2013** 13. The applications of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service were rejected on the ground of not answering one or more questions regarding the antecedents against Columns 26(a) to (g) of their respective applications. The applications of the concerned applicants were made available for perusal. A perusal of such applications would reveal that they had in fact, left column 26(b) in their applications unfilled. I have already found that the mere failure to furnish details or leaving columns in 26 by itself cannot entail rejection of the concerned WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 17 applications provided such details are discernible from the details furnished elsewhere in the concerned application. Under column 26(b) the applicants were required to furnish details regarding the question whether he/she had been dismissed from service of Central or State Government or from any Quasi-Government Institution or by Government owned Company or Corporation or any Local Self Government Institution. Column 25 in the application requires the concerned candidate to furnish the details regarding the employment, either regular or temporary basis under Central or State Government or any Quasi-Government Institution or any Government owned Company or Corporation or Local Self Government Institution. In column 25 in their respective applications the petitioners have answered either by the word `No' or by the words `Not Applicable'. Obviously, all of them are seeking appointment by direct recruitment. Thus, a conjoint reading of the details and informations furnished by the petitioners in columns 15, 25 and 26 are sufficient to infer the answer required to be furnished as against column 26(b). Since I have already allowed similar writ petitions vide separate orders the petitioners are also entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the above writ petitions are disposed of and the respondents are directed to restore the applications submitted by the petitioners and to permit them to appear for the Kerala Judicial Service Preliminary WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 18 Examination, 2013 scheduled to be held on 23.6.2013. The respondents shall take appropriate steps for issuing hall tickets to the petitioners to enable them for appearing for the examination. It is made clear that hall tickets need not be sent to them and they have to collect the same in case they desire to appear for the examination to be held on 23.6.2013. Needless to say that the entitlement of the petitioners in the further stages of selection would depend upon their results in the preliminary examination. ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 15088 and 15328 of 2013** 14. The respective applications submitted by the petitioners in the above writ petitions were rejected on the ground that they left Column 26(g) unfilled. They challenge Ext.P3 and Ext.P2 respectively besides seeking directions to the respondents to accept their respective applications and permit them to appear for the preliminary examination to be held on 23.06.2013 in connection with the selection process for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service. The question in Column 26(g) reads thus:- “ **26(g)** Is any disciplinary proceedings/vigilance enquiry initiated or contemplated against you? If so, give particulars” WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 19 15. Admittedly, the petitioners had not filled it up. The contention of the petitioners is that the non-filling of Column 26(g) cannot be said to be a fatal mistake / defect so as to render the rejection of their applications. Evidently, the details required to be furnished under Column 26(g) is to the effect that whether any disciplinary proceedings/Vigilance enquiry has been initiated or contemplated against the concerned applicant. If the answer is in an affirmative the concerned applicant has to give the particulars. It is the said Column which requires such details that the petitioners left unfilled. I am at a loss to understand as to how the petitioners could canvass the position leaving the said column blank filling with dash, cannot be treated as fatal. It is to be noted that the notification in question has been issued for effecting recruitment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under the Kerala Judicial Service. If the concerned applicant is a person against whom disciplinary proceedings is initiated or contemplated or Vigilance enquiry is initiated or contemplated that would necessarily render him ineligible from being an eligible candidate. Even if the concerned applicant applies for direct recruitment will not and cannot make the filling up of the said column absolutely unnecessary. Even if a person is presently out of employment he might be a person who faced disciplinary proceedings/vigilance enquiry while in service. It certainly is a query WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 20 made with a purpose to get crucial details which could decide the disqualificative factor regarding the concerned applicant. Essentially, the petitioners were bound to fill up that Column appropriately. Leaving the said column blank/filling it with a dash, is certainly is a defect which would invalidate the concerned application and consequently, entail for its rejection. The respondent have in Ext.P1 notification itself instructed the candidates not to leave any column blank and also not to fill up any column by dots or dashes. Add to it, in instruction No.15(m) it is stated that failure to fill up the applications in accordance with or in tune with the instructions would entail rejection of the application. In this case, the details required to be given as against Column 26(g) are very much vital and relevant and therefore, the failure on the part of the petitioners in filling the said column appropriately is certainly fatal and it would amount to unwillingness to reveal the crucial and relevant details which would decide the disqualificative factor regarding their candidature. I am of the considered view that the action on the part of the respondents in viewing it seriously and consequently, rejecting their applications cannot be said to be illegal, warranting interference. In the result, these petitions are liable to fail and accordingly they are dismissed. WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 21 ## **W.P.(C) No. 15265 of 2013** 16. I have already found that the mere failure to furnish the details or leaving the columns 26(a) to (g) blank by itself cannot entail rejection of an application from a prospective candidate provided such details are gatherable from the details furnished elsewhere in the very application. The case of the second petitioner in this writ petition falls under the said category. In other words, the details failed to be furnished under the relevant column under Column 26 are getherable from the details furnished by the second petitioner in his application. Since I have allowed similar writ petitions, vide separate orders, the second petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly W.P.(C) No. 15265/2013 to the extent it pertains to the second petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the application and permit the petitioner to appear for the Kerala Judicial Preliminary Examination-2013 for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate which is to be scheduled on 23.06.2013. The respondent shall take appropriate steps for issuing hall ticket to the second petitioner to enable him for appearing for the examination. It is made clear that hall ticket need not be sent to the second petitioner and the second petitioner shall have to collect the hall ticket in case he desires to appear for the examination to WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 22 be held on 23.06.2013. Needless to say that the entitlement of the second petitioner in the further stages of the selection would depend upon, the result of the said examination. 17. As regards the first petitioner in the above writ petition he left the Columns 24 (a) to (g) blank in the NCA category application and Columns 26(b) to (g) in the General Category application, submitted by him. The hall tickets, issued to him earlier, were recalled. However, he had filled in Column 26(a). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the details to be furnished against Columns 24 (a) to (g) as also Columns 26(b) to (g) in the respective applications are not discernible from the others details furnished elsewhere in the applications and in such circumstances, the first petitioner is not entitled to the benefits granted to the second petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a feeble attempt. Since it is evident that the details given by the first petitioner as against the other columns in the said applications, copies of which were produced for perusal, the details required to be furnished under aforesaid columns could not be inferred or gathered. In the said circumstances, the action in recalling the hall tickets cannot be said to be illegal. Hence, the writ petition is liable to fail. Accordingly W.P.(C) No. 15265/2013 to the extent it WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 23 pertains to the first petitioner is dismissed. ## **W.P.(C)No.15533 of 2013** 18. The reason for rejection of application of the petitioner is that she had not answered one or more of the questions regarding the antecedents against column 26 (a) to (g) of the application. Copy of the application of the petitioner made available by the learned standing counsel for the respondents would reveal that in fact, the petitioner left only column 26(b) blank and she has filled up all the other columns. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner has left only one column viz., 26(b) whereby the petitioner was required to furnish the details regarding the question whether had she been dismissed from service of Central or State Government or from any Quasi-Government Institution or by Government owned Company or Corporation or any Local Self Government Institution. In column 25 the petitioner gave the answer as `Not Applicable' and the question therein pertains to employment, either regular or temporary, under Central or State Government or any QuasiGovernment Institution or any Government owned Company or Corporation or Local Self Government Institution. She seeks direct recruitment. A conjoint reading of the details/informations be furnished WP(C).No.15021/2013 & connected cases 24 under columns 15, 25 and 26 and details furnished by the petitioner as against such columns, according to me, are sufficient to infer the details to be furnished as against column 26(b). The petitioner has given the details of her enrolment as Advocate and the period of her practice under column 20(f). As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner is admittedly enrolled in the roll of the State Government as Advocate on 21.8.2002. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the action on the part of the petitioner in leaving column 26(b) cannot be said to be fatal enough to entail rejection of the application submitted by her. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the preliminary examination to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate which is scheduled to be held on 23.6.2013 and subject to its outcome for the rest of the selection process in tune with the prescribed procedure for selection. Needless to say that the details with respect to the antecedents which are relevant and required to be furnished could be verified at the appropriate state, in case of necessity. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** TKS/spc/dlk