[C—78 3^T ?FT f^^jch ?T8TT 3TT^?T $ti^ic^ ^crT ^NI^-q, ^-cfl^^KS, f®t01^^< LJC y ^ 't HW<ri[ cbNlcb . ^, PD- 3o \ /•ZDO^- •"•^ 200 / 3n^?r xnrsF (i^f^^) '^nw^n^n^T APPELALNT/ PETITiONER RESPONDENTS INTERVEN.ER }hri indar Chand Rakecha, aged about 44 y^ars, S/o Lats Shri Baiuram, R,/o Nsar New ^us Stand, Baiod, District Durg (CG). -Versus- gtate of Chhattlsgarh, throuah the Secretarv, l^w & Legjslstiys Works Department, D.K.S. ^hawan, Raipur (CG). 2. /l1he Deputv Secretary, Law & LeaisJatlve .yorks Dopartmont, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (pG). 3, ^ewakram Sonbarsa, S/o Late BrijSaj ^onbarsa, aged about 57 years, R/o Rliararpara, Baiod, District Durg (CG). (WritAppeal underSection Divisjcln DBiEon'bJeShrLL.C.Bhadocl 24-1-2008 Bha<jiuri Heard Shri KJshore Harlt, Dy. Advocate General for The appellant has prefe? Chhattisgarh Hiah CourtAppeal jegality and correctness of passed by Hon'ble Singte Chand Rakecha vs. State of Single Judge dismissed the Questionlng the order dated'5- <=hl<4i<yl41^ ^I^KnT^ft^ iFt^K ^T 3TRPT 3??T^T ofthe Chhattisgarh High CourtAppeal to Bsnch Act, 2006) & Hon'bJe Shri Sunjl Kumar Sinha. JJ ha«puri, counsei for the appellant & Shri Vlnay the State/resoondents No.1 & 2. i|red this writ appeaj under Section 2 of the I to Divjsion Bench Act, 2006 questionlng the th|e order dated 19-11-2007 (Annexure-A/1) Ju4lge in W.P.(C) No.2435/2007 (Shri Indar Chhattlsgarh & Others) whereby Hon'bte ^vrit petjtion fiied by the appejlant herein -2007-Dassed bv respondent No.2 wherebv -HC—78 ^vSf ^ll-qi^'q, ^lfly^KS, (c)01-M^< ^i) ^INdll *^ldb •^ 200 'STI^T ^T f^'ijch ^T^T 3TT^T 5b^ic^ ^s^i ^S^K (^S^s^s) '^TTW^ftn^T^T obi^<rt^rli +4i^<yiT ^f.rs^ <Fai^i< ir ^fRpT 3n^r the appointment of the petitioneif on the post of Notary Pubiic by order dated 2-8-2006 was canceiled on thej around that due to bona fide mistake his appointment was made againsttfie reserved post in excess ofvacancy. We have heard iearned c<l?unsej for the parties on admission. Shri Bhaduri, learned coyhse! for the appellant, argued that In the first Instance before passlng the o+Ser dated 5-4-2007 the appeliant was not given the opportunjty of hearing t^y respondent No.2 to show cause as to why his appolntment shouid not b^ Bhaduri is that even the order { was on wrong premises, as ther|e were aiready 9 posts of Notary Pubiic and the appointment of the appellant were only 6 posfs and his appolr^ On the other hand, Shri H the order dated 19-11-2007 pas^ As far as the point raisedl perusal of the Impugned order cancelied on the ground that dtj -made against the reserved post | Publlc in Balod Tahslland 6 per^ canceiled. The second argument of Shri piated 5-4-2007 passed by respondent No.2 |has been canceiled on the ground that there Itment was in excess of 6 posts. arit, Jearned counsei for the State, supported ;ed by Hon'bie Sing!e Judge. by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants appointment was c^nce!!ed on wrong premlses is concerned, eveals that the appeiiant's appoSntment was e to bona fsde mistake his appolntment was in excess'vacancv i,e. when the apDolntment was made cn the post of Notaty Pubiic there v^ere oniy 6 posts of Notary ons were alreadv worklng as Notary Public. As far as contention of fearned counsei for the appeiiant that there were 9 posts of Notary Public i^ there were 9 posts when the Before Hon'bie Single Judge, concerned, there is no record to show that petitloner was appointed as Notary Pubiic. in the writ petition; no such Government y :?®-He—78 ^S ^—..^•'^ ii^. '3^ -^1^10<4, ^>xf|y^|<o, I®i01-M^< .-^0 ^WWl ^"'WSR "W^ 200 3TT^?T'g^? (^cff^^T) 3TT^T ?5T'f^;?f5r TfSTT 37r^T °^^ Jf- '^ITW^rf^T ^TT^T notification or any Govemment or\ be shown that 6 posts of Notary para 7 of the writ appeai shows dated 19-5-2006 issued bythe Notaries to be appojnted m the to 600, Even jf it is taken as ii is,| record to show^ that how those pursuance of that the State G^ notification regarding the increa^ petitioner was appointed as Therefore. wlthout any material iearned .counsel for the appel( appointment of the appeitent wa^ were 9 posts. Now. comina to the seconld afforded to the petitioner. it is dated 5-4-2007 the appellant wa^ was nof glven any opportunityl aDDointment of the aDpeliant wai this fact was brought to the notic^ the appellant on the post of Nota^ post, the Government immediateil even ifopportunity was given to| been a futiie exerdse becaus^ appojntment of the appeliant wa^ CM^f<yi<ilTi *ii*i<nl ^fe^ <R»t^i< ^ 3Tf?PT ^TT^T [jder was placed on record by which it couid ^ubjic v^as increased to 9. Even perusai of Ithat vide notification No.G.S.R. No.296 (E) Cfentra-1 Government the maximum number of of Chhattisaarh was increased from 400 |no materiaiwas piaced bythe petltioner o'n ^00 posts were distributed and whether in fcvemment or Central Government issued sa|e of post in Baiod Tahsii, because the Noftarv Pubiic .for the area of Baiod Tahsii. |on record the argument of Shri Bhaduri, jant is devold of merit that when the ^ made on the post of Notary Public there adrhitted point that opportunity of hearing was not posltion that before passjng the order not served upon show cause notice or he of hearing. but in this case.since the made without havina anv post and when of the Government that the appointnnent of v Public was made in excess of sanctioned / issued the canceiiation order. Jn this case, the appeilant for.hearing that wouid have there was nothing to be heard as the made on a post which was not available. ^^^:^^.. jf!E:i... „ 39-W-78 "f .% ^•... ...-' 3^q- c^l^l^, ^TQy'Ko, (s|01'M^< 27 ^l^^tl 9b^l^ "^ 200 3'TT^T ^T ^|ch ^sn ^TT^T 5h^l<^ ^ 3nif?r xnr^F (^^<^) ^<TTW^f^3^T AsSlok considered The appeilant has not been al^i apDejlant has caused a reaJ orei< afforded to the appeilant that is i|» for thls, we are fortified in our v| the matter of P-D. Agrawal vs.| SCC 778), whlch has been reiiecj Even in the matter of others {(2007) 4 SCC 54}, the| naturai Justice may not be app!l! shown. The app!lcation of said ^ a futj!e exercise. Where the se!< as he was Ineiigible to be appolntment without affordlng an| of the University concerned, heic| been a fytile exercise to give th< court of law does not insist on issue any such directlon where the fact situation prevailing or In For the foregoing reasonsj is no merit in thls appeal, the sai dismlssed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <=bl<4(d^T1 T7TTT^f ^f^st <P^^l< '^stRpT^n^r le to show that in fact non-hearing of the sdice, Even if opportunity of hearing was not lot going to affect the merits of the case and aw by the declsion of the Supreme Court in |State Bank of India and others ((2008)8 upon by Hon'bie Slngie .Judge. Kunfiar Sonkar vs. Union of lndi a and Supreme Court held that'the principles of j^able in a given case unless a prejudice is trinciples Is not. necessary where it ^vould be actlon; of the appellant etnpioyee was iliegal for appointment. the canceiiation of his ^ opportunity of hearing to him by the Visitor was proper. !n such a case, it would have •appeilant an opportunity of belng heard. A c^mpliance with useless formality. it wilS not t|ie resuit vrouid remain the same. in vlew of t^rms of the Segai consequences. we are ofthe considered opinion thatthere ^ie is iiabie to be dismlssed and it is hereby Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge