Judgment :- K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner who was a Judicial Magistrate of First Class, was dismissed from service by the High Court. The validity of that order is under challenge in this Original Petition. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner joined service as Judicial Magistrate of Second Class in 1982. Later, he was promoted as Judicial Magistrate of First Class. While so, he was served with Ext. PI charge sheet dated 3.7.1986. The allegation contained in Ext. PI was that he received/ tried to receive some favours from a party to a case pending before him. He submitted Ext. P2 reply dated 3.8.1986. Dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, this Court on the administrative side by Ext. P3 dated 31.10.1986 appointed art Inquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations against him. The Inquiry Officer completed his enquiry and-submitted Ext. P8 Report dated 2.2.1987 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. This Court by Ext. P9. dated 13.4.1987 issued a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted Ext. P10 reply to the said notice. Overruling his contentions, this Court by Ext. PI 1 order dated 7.12.1987 dismissed the petitioner from service. Petitioner filed an appeal against Ext. Pll before the Government as evidenced by Ext. P12 dated 21.12.1987. From the pleadings of the petitioner it appears that the said Appeal was not forwarded by this Court to the Government. Petitioner submitted a supplementary Appeal Memorandum as evidenced by Ext. PI3 on 6.9.1997. 3. Against the withholding of the Appeal Memorandum, the petitioner approached this Court on the judicial side by filing an Original Petition and later a Writ Appeal. Since they were dismissed, he moved the Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No. 4978/97 the Supreme Court held that an appeal will lie to the Governor which has to be decided in accordance with the opinion of the High Court. Thereafter, it appears, the Appeals were forwarded to the Governor and the Government taking into account the recommendations of this Court contained in letter dated 5.4.1999 dismissed the Appeals by Ext. P14 order dated 29.6.1999. The petitioner challenges Ext. PI 1 order of dismissal and Ext. P14 Appellate Order. He also challenges the constitutional validity of R.5 of the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules, 1973. 4. P14 order dated 29.6.1999. The petitioner challenges Ext. PI 1 order of dismissal and Ext. P14 Appellate Order. He also challenges the constitutional validity of R.5 of the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules, 1973. 4. The only ground urged before me was that the Governor being the appointing authority of a judicial Magistrate of First Class as per Art.234 of the Constitution of India, the dismissal of the petitioner who is a Judicial Magistrate of First Class by this Court is ultmyires. He also challenges the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules (then in force) by which this Court was provided as the Appointing Authority of a Judicial First Class Magistrate. It is submitted that the said provisions in the Special Rules are ultra vires of the provisions of Art.234 of the Constitution of India. Grounds in this regard are raised as Grounds 'G' & 'H' 5. All other grounds raised in the Original Petition are relating to the correctness of the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding petitioner's guilt and also regarding the findings of fact made by the disciplinary as well as appellate authority. They being findings of fact, this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot normally disturb them. Therefore, the counsel rightly did not canvass those points. Even then, I examined the other grounds also raised in the Original Petition. I find that they are untenable, as the findings entered by the competent authorities can in no way be described as perverse. 6. Now the only point which remains to be considered is whether this Court on the administrative side is competent to dismiss the petitioner,, who is a Judicial First Class Magistrate. Before examining the said point, I may point out that the petitioner has not raised this point while he submitted Ext. P10 reply to Ext. P9 show cause notice issued by this Court proposing to dismiss him from service. In Ext. PI2 appeal memorandum as well as in Ext. P13 supplementary appeal memorandum also, this point is not raised. Further, I find that he has moved this Court on the judicial side as well as the Supreme Court for getting his appeal memorandum forwarded to the Government. The said motion appears to have been made only in 1997. In Ext. PI2 appeal memorandum as well as in Ext. P13 supplementary appeal memorandum also, this point is not raised. Further, I find that he has moved this Court on the judicial side as well as the Supreme Court for getting his appeal memorandum forwarded to the Government. The said motion appears to have been made only in 1997. In those cases also, the lack of jurisdiction of this Court to dismiss him is not seen raised, even though the motion before this Court appears to have been made after ten years of his dismissal in 1987. Further, the Supreme Court directed this Court to forward the appeal memorandum for the consideration of the same by the Governor in accordance with the recommendations of this Court. Therefore, he is precluded from contending in the Original Petition filed on 27.10.1999 that the Governor was the original authority and not the appellate authority. Thus, going by the principles concerning the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, this new contention urged is liable to be discarded for acquiescence, delay and laches. It is barred by the principles of res judicata also. 7. Apart from that, on merits also, the petitioner does not have any case. Reference to the constitutional provisions relied on by the petitioner will reveal it. Art.234 reads: "Recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service:- Appointments of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. This Article says that appointment of members of Judicial Service other than District Judges shall be made by the Governor in accordance with the Rules made by him after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court; whereas Art.233(1) says: "Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, District Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. " Art.236(b) defines "judicial service" as follows: "The expression "judicial service" means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of District Judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of District Judge. " 8. The petitioner is not holding a civil judicial post inferior to the post of District Judge. He is a judicial Magistrate of the First Class. So he is not covered by Arts.234 and 235 of the Constitution of India. This will be further evident from Art.237 also wherein it is stated that, "The Governor may by public notification direct that the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and any rules made thereunder shall with effect from such date as may be fixed by him in that behalf apply in relation to any class or classes of Magistrates in the State as they apply in relation to persons appointed to the judicial service of the State subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification". 9. This aspect is further clear from the Constituent Assembly Debates. Arts.233 to 237 in the Constitution of India were draft Arts.209A, 209B, 209C, 209D and 209E respectively. They were debated in the Constituent Assembly on 19.6.1949 and again on 16.9.1949. In the Constituent Assembly, Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of Drafting Committee on 16.9.1949 mentioned the objects of the said provisions in the Chapter in the following words: "Sir, the object of these provisions is two-fold: First of all, to make provisions for the appointment of District Judges and Subordinate Judges and their qualifications. The second object is to place the whole of the civil judiciary under the control of the High Court. The only thing which has been expected from the general provisions contained in Arts.209A, 209B and 209C is with regard to the magistracy, which is dealt with under Art.209E. " Draft Art.209E is the present Art.237 enabling the Governor to issue a notification making the provisions in this Chapter applicable to the magistracy also. The petitioner does not have any case that the Governor of the State has issued any notification as contemplated under Art.237 making Arts.233 to 235 applicable to Judicial Magistrates also. Further, at the relevant time, when disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner, he was governed by the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules, 1973. The petitioner does not have any case that the Governor of the State has issued any notification as contemplated under Art.237 making Arts.233 to 235 applicable to Judicial Magistrates also. Further, at the relevant time, when disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner, he was governed by the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules, 1973. The criminal judiciary was made part of the civil judicial service only with effect from 1992 when criminal judicial service and civil judicial service were integrated. After the integration, the Judicial First Class Magistrate became an addition to the cadre of Munsiff. Therefore, till the integration which took place in 1992, the provisions of Arts.234 and 235 of the Constitution of India were not applicable to the members of the criminal judicial service, like the petitioner. 10. The petitioner challenges R.4 of the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service Rules, 1973 which reads as follows: "(4) Definition :- "Appointing Authority" means the Governor in the case of first appointment to category 4 in R.5 and the High Court in all other cases including appointment as full members". Category 4 is Sub Magistrate designed as Judicial Magistrate of Second Class. Petitioner belongs to category 3 "Judicial First Class Magistrate". Since the provisions in Chapter 6 dealing with Subordinate Courts in Part VI of the Constitution do not apply to magistracy, the contention of the petitioner that R.4 of the Criminal Judicial Service, 1973 is ultra vires of Art.234 or Art.235 is plainly untenable. 11. Further, R.13 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules provides that the authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service provided under R.11(1)(viii) of the said Rules on members of the criminal judicial service other than Judicial Magistrate of Second Class is the High Court. Further Note 1 to R.23 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules provides among other things that a member of the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service shall be entitled to appeal to the Government against an order passed by the High Court under these Rules. Invoking that right, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Government. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge these provisions in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. 12. For the above reasons, I find that the petitioner's contention that this Court is not competent to dismiss him from service, is devoid of any merit. Invoking that right, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the Government. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge these provisions in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. 12. For the above reasons, I find that the petitioner's contention that this Court is not competent to dismiss him from service, is devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (1999 (7) SCC 725) and Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa (AIR 1976 SC 1899). The first decision would have been squarely applicable to the facts of this case, if the petitioner was a member of the civil judicial service. From the facts narrated in paragraph 4 of that decision it would reveal that the Officer involved was a Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Orissa Superior Judicial Service, Junior Branch. So, it would appear that the Magistrates in Orissa State were members of the "judicial service". Therefore, Art.234 applied to his case and to all similarly placed persons. Since I have already found that the petitioner is not a member of the judicial service as defined under Art.236, the principles laid down in the said decision will not apply to him. The principles laid down in the second decision of Baradakanta Mishra also will not apply to the facts of this case. That decision deals with the dismissal of a District judge and therefore it is governed by Art.233. Thus, the above said decisions cannot bail out the petitioner. The Original Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.