,,.^":-'a!«^ ,/°".esiv"^\t, ^p/^ i. »~n"8i '^ li. 9 (7&^ •^ \< mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T^/ WRITPETITION fQNo. 46 of 2011 PETITIONER Leeladhar Prasad Chandrakar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Sl- Post forpronouncementofjudgment & order on ...A.day ofAugust, 2011. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ^: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRITPETITION fC) No. 46 of 2011 Leeladhar Prasad Chandrakar. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The State ofChUattisgarh & Others. WRITPETITIOXUNDERARTICLE. 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Aenihotri, J, Preserit: Shn M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General forthe State/respondent No. 1. Shri V.C.Shanna, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. l'. i£<~.~ - . " • ^..•.: 1'. (Delivered on...4-...day ofAugust, 2011) 1 . .' ' . ' . • . . • By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the name ofthe petitioner for appointment onthe post ofNotary at Civil Court, Raipur and fiirther seeks quashmg of the appointment ofthe respondent No. 3 on the said post vide notings dated 08.09.2010 and dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P/5). The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 1 published a notification in the year 2008 inviting applications for the purpose ofappointment on the post of Notaries in the territorial jurisdiction of the Raipur Civil Court.; Pursuant to the said notification,the petitioner, alongwith other Advocates, submitted their applications through the District & Sessions Judge, Raipur (the respQndent No. 2). The resppndent Np. 2, vide the memo dated 01.Q9.2009 infqrmed the petitioner fhat his name was approved for consideration for appointment on the post of Notary, and thus, directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- through Challan andsubmit a non-judicial stamp ofRs. 500/- so that requisite papers could be forwarded to the respondent No.l for further proceeding. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the challan ofRs. 1000/- and non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, when thepetitioner did not receive any appointment order, he approached the respondent No. 1 arid 2. Again,on 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 1 requesting to issue the licence of Notary. The respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner through the respondent No. 2 that his documents, challan and non-judicial stamp were being retumed, vide memo dated 20,10.2010 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner applied for the certified copy of the entire note sheet in respect to appointonent process of the Notary under the provisions ofthe Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein he came to know that inplace ofthe petitioner, the respondent No. 3 was appointed vide notings dated 08.09.2010 andto ' that effect was also stafed in the notings on 29.09.2010 ofthe govemment file (Annexure P/5), which are impugned herein. 3. Shri Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action ofthe respondent authorities is arbitrary; malafide and discriminatory. On pemsal of the entire documents, it is appareritthat earlier, fhe petitionerwas being considered for grant of Notary licence but all of a sudden, the jrespohdent No. 3 was appointed which was an outcome ofpolitical motivation. Onpemsal ofthe notings of _ the State (Aimexure P/5), it wpuld reveal that the respondent No. 3 had submitted incomplete application form which did not contain atiy signature. Even the ChiefMinister has intervened in tUe matter and directed the Law Ministry to accept the application of the respondent No. 3, despite there being an objectiQii by the Law Department. However, on account of the recommendation of the Chief Minster, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Notary at Civil Court, Raipur vide notings dated 29.09.2010, m the govemment file which resulted into passing ofthe formal order. On perusal of the govemment file, it is found that the respondent No. 3 was grantedNotary licencevide certificate dated 29.09.2010 fora penodoffiveyears. , , 4. On the other hand, Shri Moorthy,leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 would submit fhat in the list of name of 124 advocates sent by the District Judge, Raipur, the name of the petitioner was not I. / :' ; :! ; ^^:;1,:1 11 '.. .'' '...• . . 1 ,' • • there as the application of the petitionerwas received by the 'respondentNo. 1, after the stipulated time. Further,,fhere was an pbjectionby one K. Shrinivas, Advocate fbr considering the name ofthepetitioner forappointmghim asNotary. Siace ^ ^ the petitiOner failed to submit his application in time, thus, he cannot claim as a matter ofright appointment as Notary. \ ••..'.' ' ' • .' ' ' • • ' • 5. The respondent No. 3 was represented through Shri Y.C.Shanna, Advocate. He wpuld admit that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Notary subsequently. However, the respondent No. 3 had chosen not to file any response by way ofretumorcoimteraffidavit. 6. Initially, the petitioner sought quashing of the prders dated 08.09^010 and 129.09.2010 issued by the State/respondent No. 1 in favour ofthe respondent No. 3, appointmg him as Notary. Thereafter, during pendency of the petition, by order dated 08.04.2011, amendmentto the effect to consider the case of the petitioner for appointanent on the post of Public Notary at Civil Court, Raipur, was allowed. 7. Indisputably, pursuant to the~advertisetoent, the respondent No. 2 prepareda list of 124 Advocates and vide letter dated 25.10/24.11.2008 forwarded to the Principal,Secretary,Law and Legislatiye Affairs Department, alongwith their memorials fQrconsideration to appoint on the six vacantposts ofNotary at Civil Coiirt, Raipur and Tahsils. The name of respondent No. 3 was at serial No. 42, Thereafter, the ^etitioner made an applicatlpn and the same was submitted alongwith memprial on 22.01.2009 and this was also forwarded by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 on 04.02.2009 making a note that though, the case of the •"I petitioner deserves to be rejected on aceount of late submission of the applieation, however, since the decision was to be taken by the Govemment, the memorial was sent. Thereafter, it appears that vide letter dated 27.08.2009, the respondent No. 2 was informed that the State Govemment has taken a decision'to appoint Dhannendra Raut, Santosh Singh Thakur, Prabhulal Nayak, Bhupendra Sharma, Leeladhar Chandrakar and Ku. Hemlata Singh, as Notary. They were accordingly directed to deposit a sum ofRs. 1000/- as fee and non-judicial jstamp ofRs. 50Q/-. I have exammed the original proceedings ofthe Government. On perusal, it was found that one K. Shrinivas, Advocate lodged a complaint fhat the appointment ofthe petitioner was bad as the last date df submission of the application was 06.09.2008 andthe applicatiori ofthe petitioner was made on 21.01.2009, which could not have been entertained. After considering l the same, it appears thaf Ihe name of the petitionerwas drQppedbefore appointmentorderinhisfavour could be issued. ; ' ' ' ' ' Admittedly,j the Law Department, afiter examining the memorials recommended the name of all except 9 candidates '^vhowere atserialNo.8,12, 15, 21, 47, 51,58, 62, and91 on the ground, thatfhey did not possess the essential requisite qualificatiou for appointment on the post ofNotary, vide the notingsdated 30.12.2008. The name ofthe petitioner was also recommended subsequently, by notings dated 11.02.2009. So y^-y^.^ .f i^;»»ii».'3%i ?" f "¥1 :>». - » "IA:.31:J ^iss^ff 10. far as resporident No. 3 is concemed, he was already iti the list of recommetided candidates, howevei", the Government did not apprQve the riame initially for appointment on the post of Notary, as aforestated. Thereafter, it appears tUat the respondent No. 3 made an application to the ChiefMinister on 31.01.2009, directly,which was referred back to the Secretary, Law Department for doing the needfiil. However, it was rioted that the application dated 31.01.2009 wasnot signed by the re^pondent No. 3. It-was informed that though the name ofthe respondent No. 3 was in the panel list at serial No. 42, but after examination, decision was taken to appoint other Advocates except the respondent No. 3. On perusal of the notings|dated 27.7.2010, singed by the then Principal Secretary, Law Department, it was found that there was a noting ofthe ChiefMmster to approve the appointment of respondentNo. 3,. . •i •.;.'.;'. . • • . ' • ; :. • ;. Be that as it may;the appointment ofthe respondent No. 3 on the post of Notary at Civil Court, Raipur was npt in accordance with law as the name ofthe respondent No. 3 was in the panel, however, he was not selected fdr appointment out of the pariel of 142 Advocates. The selection was made subsequently at fhe instance pfthe Chief Mmister, ignoring [ •• • ^ ! .' • • ' . • . • — the claim of Qther .more eligible candidates. Thus, the appointment^oftherespondent No. 3 is not sustainable in law and it deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. tt 7 •• '. .. . :.. 11. So far as the petitioner is concemed, he can also not be appointed against the said vacancy which arose from quashing pf|the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as fhe application ofthe petitioner was received after the cut off date fixed in the advertisement; TUus, consequent thereupon, one seat falls vacant which should be filled up by proper advertisemeht and after granting proper opportunity tp the eligible caadidates forparticipating intheselectionprocessm accordance wifh the prqvisions ofthe Notaries Act, 1952 read with the Notaries Rules, 1956. 12, In view ofthe above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.. • . . • 13. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- S^bK.^11 Judge ibotn Amit