Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. The Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, to quash Exts. P5, P7 and P11 orders and for the mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as a Notary Public at Kannur. According to the petitioner, he joined Government service as an Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II on 31.5.1975 and subsequently he was appointed as Judicial First Class Magistrate and he retired as such as 29.2.1984. From March, 1984 he rejoined the Kannur Bar and has been practising as an Advocate in the various courts at Kannur and Thalassery; The petitioner, as required under the Notaries Act and the Notaries Rules, submitted a memorial in Form No.1 to the Deputy Secretary, Department of law, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram along with a covering letter dated 16.3.1990 requesting the Government to appoint and admit him as a Notary Public in Kannur. Copy of the memorial and the covering letter are produced and marked as Exts. P1 and P2 respectively. The petitioner received a reply on 16.6.1990 from the respondent pointing out certain defects in the memorial and returning the same for rectification, under Ext. P3. The defects were cured and the application was re-submitted to the respondent under Ext. P4. The petitioner subsequently received a latter dated 27.4.1990 from the respondent, Ext. P1 informing him that his application for appointment as Notary Public was rejected. The reason stated in Ext. P5 order was that the petitioner was not having the required qualification of 10 years continuous practice as a legal practitioner as on the date of the application. On receipt of Ext. P5, a further representation dated 31.8.1990 was made by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had more than 18 years of practice as an Advocate prior to his joining Government service as Assistant Public Prosecutor and more than six years of practice as an Advocate after his retirement. Besides that, his Government service was also as Assistant Public Prosecutor and Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner accordingly requested for consideration of his Ext. P1 memorial, which was rejected on 5.10.1990 under Ext. P7, on the ground that a person to be eligible for appointment as a Notary Public, he should have continuous 10 years practice as an Advocate and that it is not sufficient to have more than 10 years total practice. The petitioner accordingly requested for consideration of his Ext. P1 memorial, which was rejected on 5.10.1990 under Ext. P7, on the ground that a person to be eligible for appointment as a Notary Public, he should have continuous 10 years practice as an Advocate and that it is not sufficient to have more than 10 years total practice. The petitioner again submitted another representation dated 24.11.1990 stating that similar persons who were having only less than 10 years continuous practice had been appointed as Notary Public by the Government. He cited a specific instance of the appointment of one Prabhakara Naik as a Notary Public at Kasaragod who was rank No. 23 in the list of Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade 1 and who retired as a Sub Judge on 16.7.1985. According to the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakara Naik was appointed as a Notary Public without insisting on the requirement of continuous ten years practice as an Advocate and only in the case of the petitioner such a condition is insisted upon by the respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that R.3(b) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 does not require 10 years continuous practice as a legal practitioner as on the date of the application for appointing a person as Notary. According to the petitioner, the rule only says that no person who has got 10 years service as a legal practitioner would be entitled to be appointed as a Notary and since the petitioner has several years of practice as a legal practitioner and has also held a post of Judicial First Class Magistrate, he is preeminently a fit person to be considered for appointment as a Notary. However his request for appointment as a Notary was refused only on the ground that he did not have 10 years continuous service as a legal practitioner on the date of application. It is contended that the approach made by the respondent in rejecting the application is clearly illegal and unsustainable in law, and therefore, liable to be quashed. 3. The Law Secretary to Government filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner is having only six years of continuous practice as on the date of his application and as the applicant does not have the required qualification of ten years continuous practice as on the date of the application, his application for appointment as Notary was rejected. The Law Secretary to Government filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner is having only six years of continuous practice as on the date of his application and as the applicant does not have the required qualification of ten years continuous practice as on the date of the application, his application for appointment as Notary was rejected. Hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in rejecting the application. With reference to the allegation of discriminatory treatment regarding the appointment of Sri. Prabhakar a Naik which was made on 5.11.1986 it is submitted that the said Prabhakara Naik was appointed based on the recommendation of the then competent authority. Later the Government re-examined the case in detail and found that R.3(b) of the Notaries Rules requires 10 years continuous practice as on the date of the application for appointment, and the mistake was rectified in the light of the interpretation given to the words "practising as". Itis submitted that the orders rejecting the application are not illegal and are strictly in accordance with the Notaries Act and Rules. 4. The only question to be considered in this case is as to whether ten years' continuous practice as a legal practitioner as on the date of the application for appointing a person as a Notary Public is required or not. The Notaries Act, 1952 (Act No. LIII of 195 2) was assented by the President of India on 9th August, 195 2 and was published in the Government Gazette on 11th August, 1952. S.2(c) defines legal petitioner as follows: "(c) "legal practitioner" means any advocate or agent of the Supreme Court or any advocate, Vakil or attorney of any High Court or any pleader authorised under any law for the time being in force to practice in any court of law." 5. 2(d) defines "Notary" to mean a person appointed as such under the Act. In this case, we are concerned with R.3 which prescribes the qualification for appointment as Notary, which reads thus: "3. Qualifications for appointment as a notary - No person shall be eligible for appointment as a Notary unless on the date of the application for such appointment - (a) he is a notary public appointed by Master of Faculties in England, or (b) he has been practising as legal practitioner for at least ten years". Initially R.3 ran as follows: "3. Initially R.3 ran as follows: "3. No person other than a legal practitioner shall be eligible for appointment asa Notary: (a) unless he is immediately before the commencement of the Act practising as notary public in India or in any part thereof; or (b) unless he has been bound by a contract in writing or by indenture of apprenticeship > to serve and has in pursuance of such contract or indenture actually and continuously served as an articled clerk to a practising notary for not less than three years." The said old rule has been substituted as above by G.S. R.151 dated 14.3.1959. The words "practising as" were inserted in the new sub-clause (b) by G.S.R.1056 dated 30.10.1958. Thus, it is seen from the above legislative changes to clause (b) of R.3 that (1) initially the notary was expected to be actually and continuously serving as an articled clerk to a practising notary for not less than three years; (2) then he was "' expected to be a legal practitioner for at least ten years and now, by the last amendment, a person must be practising as a legal practitioner for at least ten years for his being appointed as notary. I have already referred to the definition of "legal practitioner" vide S.2(c). 5. The legislature, while making the legislative changes, wanted that a legal practitioner who has been practising as such for at least ten years will be qualified to be appointed as notary and not the person who has been called merely to be legal practitioner often years standing remaining dormant with a Samad (licence or certificate of legal practitioner) and not practising as such. Thus, it is clear that a person must be practising as a lawyer for not less than 10 years and he is expected to possess knowledge of various laws in general including commercial and stamp laws to his credit. Since notarial acts are of international importance, a notary is also expected to be well conversant with English language to prepare documents and make endorsements in English language for the international authorities and or persons concerned to understand them. 6. R.4 provides for application for appointment as a notary and reads as follows: "4. Since notarial acts are of international importance, a notary is also expected to be well conversant with English language to prepare documents and make endorsements in English language for the international authorities and or persons concerned to understand them. 6. R.4 provides for application for appointment as a notary and reads as follows: "4. Application for appointment as a notary: - (1) A person may make an application for appointment as a notary thereinafter called "the applicant ") in the form of a memorial addressed to such officer or au thirty thereinafter referred to as the "competent authority" ) of the appropriate Government as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate in this behalf. (2) The memorial shall be drawn as nearly as may be in accordance with Form 1. (3) The memorial shall be signed by the applicant and in the case of an applicant other than a practising notary public, notary public appointed by the Master of Faculties in England shall also be countersigned by at least ten persons representative of the Magistrate, bankers, merchants and principal inhabitants of the local area in which the applicant desires to practice as a notary." It is always preferable and it is more desirable in my opinion to provide for testing the knowledge of the applicant about the law of notaries, stamp duties, conveyance of various types of documents and allied laws besides other qualifications and also to make an effective enquiry about his honesty and integrity before he is appointed as a notary. A notary has to discharge his functions by virtue of his office in various ways. Notarial acts are recognised by law and accepted everywhere. S.56 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no fact of which the court will take judicial notice need be proved and S.57(6) of the Evidence Act provides that the court shall take judicial notice of the seals of Notaries Public. A notary is appointed by the authorities on Government level. By the laws of the nation, a notary has credit every where. His seal is taken judicial notice of and his acts in themselves are Presumption Veritatis at Solemnest is ie., presumed to be true and regular. A notary is appointed by the authorities on Government level. By the laws of the nation, a notary has credit every where. His seal is taken judicial notice of and his acts in themselves are Presumption Veritatis at Solemnest is ie., presumed to be true and regular. His services can be availed of by the public every day or night without any restriction of any holiday and at the convenience of the parties concerned at their own place by requesting the notary and arranging for his conveyance and arrival there, or at the office of the notary. Thus, the service of a notary have their own importance, credit and utility for the public at large in his own country and abroad in foreign countries. Hence, the Government thought it fit to prescribe necessary qualification for selecting and appointing persons as such. R.3, in my opinion, provides that a legal practitioner who has been practising as such for at least 10 years alone is qualified to be appointed as a notary and not the person who has been called merely to be a legal practitioner of ten years standing, remaining dormant with a licence or certificate of a legal practitioner and not practising as such. A notary, by virtue of his office, has to verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any testament and also has to perform various other functions as per S.8 of the Notaries Act. It is, therefore, always desirable to prescribe qualifications as provided in R.3 of the Notaries Rules and select and appoint a person who has ten years continuous practice in the field of law. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the impugned orders Exts. P5, P7 and P11 rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required qualification of ten years continuous practice as a legal practitioner are right in law. As pointed out in Ext. P7, the requirement of the rule is that the applicant must have been practising as a legal practitioner for at least ten years as on the date of application and should have continuous practice of at least ten years as on the date of application. In my opinion, the rule does not provide that ten years of total practice alleged by the petitioner. In my opinion, the rule does not provide that ten years of total practice alleged by the petitioner. Likewise, the period of his Government service and as a Judicial Magistrate cannot be reckoned as practice as a legal practitioner since the definition of the term "legal practitioner" under S.2(c) of the Act does not cover such services. In the instant case, for the purpose of R.3(b) of the Notaries Rules, the petitioner is having only 61/2 years of continuous practice as legal practitioner, as on the date of the application and is not having ten years of continuous practice as required in that rule. Therefore, he is not eligible to be appointed as a notary. The Original Petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.