Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 263 (CHH)

LEELADHAR PRASAD CHANDRAKAR v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-08-01

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2011
ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Notary at Civil Court, Raipur and further seeks quashing of the appointment of the respondent No.3 on the said post vide nothings dated 08.09.2010 and dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P/5). 2. 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 of appointment 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 respondent No.2). The respondent No.2, vide the memo dated 01.09.2009 informed the petitioner that 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 and submit a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/- so that requisite papers could be forwarded to the respondent No. 1 for further proceeding. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the challan of Rs. 1000/- and non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, when the petitioner did not receive any appointment order, he approached the respondent No. 1 and 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 returned, vide memo dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner applied for the certified copy of the entire note sheet in respect to appointment process of the Notary under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein he came to know that in place of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 was appointed vide notings dated 08.09.2010 and to that effect was also stated in the notings on 29.09.2010 of the government file (Annexure PIS), which are impugned herein. 3. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory. On perusal of the entire documents, it is apparent that earlier, the petitioner was being considered for grant of Notary licence but all of a sudden, the respondent No.3 was appointed which was an outcome of political motivation. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory. On perusal of the entire documents, it is apparent that earlier, the petitioner was being considered for grant of Notary licence but all of a sudden, the respondent No.3 was appointed which was an outcome of political motivation. On perusal of the notings of the State (Annexure PIS), it would reveal that the respondent No.3 had submitted incomplete application form which did not contain any signature. Even the Chief Minister has intervened in the matter and directed the Law Ministry to accept the application of the respondent No.3, despite there being an objection 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, in the government file which resulted into passing of he formal order. On perusal of the government file, it is found that the respondent No.3 was granted Notary, licence vide certificate dated 29.09.2010 for a period of five years. 4. On the other hand, Shri Moorthy, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent No.1 would submit that in the list of name of 124 advocates sent by the District Judge, Raipur, the name of the petitioner was not there as the application of the petitioner was received by the respondent No.1, after the stipulated time. Further, there was an objection by one K. Shrinivas, Advocate for considering the name of the petitioner for appointing him as Notary. Since the petitioner failed to submit his application in time, thus, he cannot claim as a matter of right appointment as Notary. 5. The respondent No. 3 was represented through Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate. He would 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 of return or counter affidavit. 6. Initially, the petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 08.09.2010 and 29.09.2010 issued by the State/respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.3, appointing him as Notary. Thereafter, during pendency of the petition, by order dated 08.04.2011, amendment to the effect to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Public Notary at Civil Court, Raipur, was allowed. 7. Thereafter, during pendency of the petition, by order dated 08.04.2011, amendment to the effect to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Public Notary at Civil Court, Raipur, was allowed. 7. Indisputably, pursuant to the advertisement, the respondent No.2 prepared a list of 124 Advocates and vide letter dated 25.10/24.11.2008 forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, alongwith their memorials for consideration to appoint on the six vacant posts of Notary at Civil Court, Raipur and Tahsils. The name of respondent No.3 was at serial No. 42. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application and the same was submitted alongwith memorial 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 petitioner deserves to be rejected on account of late submission of the application, however, since the decision was to be taken by the Government, the memorial was sent. Thereafter, it appears that vide letter dated 27.08.2009, the respondent No.2 was informed that the State Government has taken a decision to appoint Dharmendra Raut, Santosh Singh Thakur, Prabhulal Nayak, Bhupendra Sharma, Leeladhar Chandrakar and Ku. Hemlata Singh, as Notary. They were accordingly directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- as fee and non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/-. 8. I have examined the original proceedings of the Government. On perusal, it was found that one K. Shrinivas, Advocate lodged a complaint that the appointment of the petitioner was bad as the last date of submission of the application was 06.09.2008 'and the application of the petitioner was made on 21.01.2009, which could not have been entertained. After considering the same, it appears that the name of the petitioner was dropped before appointment order in his favour could be issued. 9. Admittedly, the Law Department, after examining the memorials recommended the name of all except 9 candidates who were at serial No. 8, 12, 15, 21,47, 51, 58, 62, and 91 on the ground, that they did not possess the essential requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Notary, vide the notings dated 30.12.2008. The name of the petitioner was also recommended subsequently, by notings dated 11.02.2009. The name of the petitioner was also recommended subsequently, by notings dated 11.02.2009. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned, he was already in the list of recommended candidates, however, the Government did not approve the name initially for appointment on the post of Notary, as aforestated. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent No.3 made an application to the Chief Minister on 31.01.2009, directly, which was referred back to the Secretary, Law Department for doing the needful. However, it was noted that the application dated 31.01.2009 was not signed by the respondent No.3. It was informed that though the name of the 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 of the Chief Minster to approve the appointment of respondent No.3. 10. Be that as i! may, the appointment of the respondent No.3 on the post of Notary' at Civil Court, Raipur was not in accordance with law as the name of the respondent No.3 was in the panel, however, he was not selected for appointment out of the panel of 142 Advocates. The selection was made subsequently at the instance of the Chief Minister, ignoring the claim of other more eligible candidates. Thus, the appointment of the respondent No.3 is not sustainable in law and it deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. 11. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he can also not be appointed against the said vacancy which arose from quashing of the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the application of the petitioner was received after the cut off date fixed in the advertisement. Thus, consequent thereupon, one seat falls vacant which should be filled up by proper advertisement and after granting proper opportunity to the eligible candidates for participating in the selection process in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 read with the Notaries Rules, 1956. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.