ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioners arises out of their non-appointments as Notary under the Notaries Act. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners had applied for appointments as Notary. However, their applications remained pending and thereafter the Notaries Rules, 1956 was amended providing for interview by the Interview Board under the provisions of rule 7A of the amended rules. The petitioners appeared in the interview, however, remained unsuccessful. Learned counsel submits that the applications for appointments of the petitioners ought not to have been considered under the amended provisions of the Rules and as such, the provisions of rule 7B, which provide for consideration of the pending application as per the amended Rules, are bad in law. As a matter of fact, the said provision of rule 7B itself is unconstitutional. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have challenged the very procedure of selection even though having taken a chance of success in the interview as per the amended provisions of the Rules. It is further submitted that the provisions of rule 7B specifically provide the procedure that the pending application would be considered as per the amended provisions of the Rules. The petitioners took chance of their success as per the amended Rules. It is further submitted that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the aforesaid rules are unconstitutional. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the petitioners had already appeared before the interview and took a chance of success and having remained unsuccessful turn-around challenging the amended provisions of the Rules, which do not appear to be correct and justified in law. Secondly, there is no foundational fact on the record suggesting that the aforesaid rules are unconstitutional. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed.