ORDER K. Bhakthavatsala, J. : Petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsements both bearing No.CJRC-l/2010 dated 21.02.2012 and 18.04.2012 at Annexures-'A' and 'B', on the file of respondent, and issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process to the post of Civil Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under : The petitioner claims that she is a practicing Advocate at Humnabad. In pursuance of the notification bearing No. CJRC. 1/2010, dated 06.08.2011 issued by the respondent, she made an application for the post of Civil Judge, in the prescribed form, along with the necessary testimonials. Her bone of contention is that the 'bonafide certificate' dated 20.08.2011 issued by S.S. Law College, Gulbarga where she had studied her five years L.L.B. course, is equivalent to 'Character Certificate'. But the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that true copy of ' character certificate' from the college where she had studied last, was not enclosed and the same was communicated to her by an endorsement dated 21.02.2012 at Annexure-'A'. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the above-said Law College and obtained 'character certificate' on 28.02.2012 and submitted the same to the respondent along with her representation at Annexure-'F' requesting to accept the same and validate her application. But her representation was rejected by the respondent and the same was communicated to her by an endorsement dated 18.04.2012 at Annexure-'B'. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the relief as mentioned above. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was under a bonafide impression that the "bonafide certificate" dated 20.08.2011 at Annexure-'C' issued by the Law College serves the purpose. He also submits that the respondent could have accepted the "character certificate" dated 28.02.2012 produced by the petitioner, but the request of the petitioner was rejected without assigning any reasons. He submits that since the respondent has issued a circular dated 6.11.2012 fixing Preliminary Examination of candidates on 8th December, 2012, at Bangalore Centre, the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned endorsements and prays for dismissal of the same. 5. He submits that since the respondent has issued a circular dated 6.11.2012 fixing Preliminary Examination of candidates on 8th December, 2012, at Bangalore Centre, the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned endorsements and prays for dismissal of the same. 5. I have perused the 'BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE' at Annexure-C and the 'CHARACTER CERTIFICATE' at Annexure-G. Both are printed forms by the above-said Law College. The contents of the certificate are almost identical, except the text "She bore a good moral character" has been added in the Character certificate at Annexure-G. It appears that the petitioner presumed that the copy of 'bonafide certificate' produced by her along with the application, holds good. It is a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner. It cannot be said the omission to produce character certificate is incurable. It is pertinent to mention that as per the Rule 8 of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied that he/she is of good character etc. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of enrollment as an Advocate one of the conditions to be fulfilled is production of a 'Character Certificate' from the law college where he/she has studied last. Under such circumstances, the respondent should have accepted the 'Character Certificate', produced by the petitioner along with her representation, and validated her candidature. But, the respondent has rejected petitioner's representation without assigning any reasons. There is no need to direct the petitioner to give another representation to the respondent to consider her request earlier made. In my view, the impugned endorsements at Annexure-'A' and 'B' are not sustainable in law and they are liable to be quashed. 6. Many applications for the post of Civil Judges have been rejected on the ground that the 'Character Certificate' issued by the Law College, where he or she has studied last, is not in the required format. I have perused the prescribed printed application form for the post of Civil Judges. 6. Many applications for the post of Civil Judges have been rejected on the ground that the 'Character Certificate' issued by the Law College, where he or she has studied last, is not in the required format. I have perused the prescribed printed application form for the post of Civil Judges. As the format of 'Character Certificate' has not been annexed with the printed application form, it is necessary that the format of the 'Character Certificate' shall be annexed with the application form to make it convenient for the concerned and the respondent No.2 is directed to take note of the same for future course of action. 7. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following order : Petition is allowed and the impugned endorsements at Annexure-'A' and 'B' on the file of respondent are quashed. Petitioner's application bearing No.3521 is held valid and the respondent is directed to issue Hall ticket and permit him (sic her) to appear for the Preliminary Examination, which is scheduled to be held on 08.12.2012. Registry is directed to issue free copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader is granted three weeks' time to file memo of appearance for respondent.