Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 902 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Meena v. Union of India

2023-04-21

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. The petitioners being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in non-inclusion of their names in the interview for selection process for appointment as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan which held from 23.05.2018 to 30.05.2018 have approached this Court under writ jurisdiction by filing this writ petition. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted their Online Application Forms on 08.05.2018 for selection as Notary Public, Government of India, in the State of Rajasthan, with hard-copies of applications to the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro City, Jaipur. The respondents while issuing the list of candidates for interview to commence from 23.05.2018 to 30.05.2018 for selection for appointment as Notaries Public, Government of India, in the State of Rajasthan, did not include their names. Counsel submitted that the petitioners are fully eligible as per the norms prescribed by the respondents for selection as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan. Counsel submitted that the respondents have discriminated in not including their names in the list of candidates to be interviewed during the period 23.05.2018 to 30.05.2018 and the same is illegal and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents submitted a detailed reply to the writ petition and Mr. Anand Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that in the list of candidates for interview for selection as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan, the names of all the candidates were included who submitted their Online Application Forms on or before 30.04.2018. Since the petitioners submitted their Online Application Forms on 08.05.2018, their names were not included in the interview list. The respondents also stated in the reply that the applications of the petitioners will be processed and they will be called for interview in the next round as and when conducted. 4. The respondents also filed counter affidavit affidavit mentioning that the candidates whose applications were received by the respondents on or before 30.04.2018 were called for interview which commenced from 23.05.2018 to 30.05.2018. 5. This Court vide interim order dated 24.05.2018 directed the respondents to allow the petitioners provisionally for appearing in the interview. 6. 4. The respondents also filed counter affidavit affidavit mentioning that the candidates whose applications were received by the respondents on or before 30.04.2018 were called for interview which commenced from 23.05.2018 to 30.05.2018. 5. This Court vide interim order dated 24.05.2018 directed the respondents to allow the petitioners provisionally for appearing in the interview. 6. On 17.12.2018, the respondents produced the result of the interview of the petitioners for the post of Notary, Government of Rajasthan, before this Court and the petitioner No.1-Suresh Kumar Meena, petitioner No.3-Surendra Kumar Meena and the petitioner No.4-Rajendra Prasad Meena were declared successful and the petitioner No.2 Ashwani Kumar Meena remained unsuccessful. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties. 8. The petitioners submitted their Online Application Forms for selection for Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan on 08.05.2018 in a regular process. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition could not place on record any document showing that there was a public notice for inviting applications for selection as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan before a particular cut-off date and also no such oral argument was raised. The petitioners have specifically stated in their writ petition and also submitted in the oral arguments that they in all respects are eligible for appointment as Public Notaries. The respondents neither in the reply to the writ petition nor in the oral arguments could make out any case that the petitioners are not eligible. The petitioners under an interim order dated 24.05.2018 passed by this Court, appeared for interview conducted by the respondents in which the petitioners No.1,3 and 4 were declared successful. 9. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition have stated that the petitioners will be called for interview in the next round. It is not the case of the respondents that their applications dated 8.5.2018 were not entertainable or acceptable but they stated that their applications shall be processed only in the next round of the interview. 10. Counsel appearing for the petitioners also argued that the petitioners appeared in the interview under the interim order of this Court and out of four petitioners, three have been declared successful. 10. Counsel appearing for the petitioners also argued that the petitioners appeared in the interview under the interim order of this Court and out of four petitioners, three have been declared successful. He also argued that the respondents will have no burden if they are appointed as Public Notaries on the basis of their result and interview under the interim order of this Court as the respondents are not going to pay any salary to them. The respondents in their reply have also admitted that the Notaries are appointed by the Government and they do not no any salary from the government and also stated that Notaryship is not a civil post or any kind of employment under the Central Government. 11. On the basis of arguments advanced by both the parties it is borne out that the petitioners are eligible for selection as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan. They all appeared in the interview under the interim order of this Court and out of four petitioners, three have also been declared successful. It is not the case of the respondents that the application submitted by the petitioners on 08.05.2018 was beyond any cut-off date notified by a public notice. 12. Considering over all facts and the circumstances of the case and specially the fact that the petitioners No.1,3 and 4 have been declared successful in the interview, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in denying the appointment as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan to the petitioners No.1,3, and 4 who have been declared successful in the interview under the interim order of this Court. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondents stated in their reply that the petitioners will be called for interview in the next round. The appearance of the petitioners for interview under the interim order of this Court could also be treated as part of next round and the petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 being successful in the interview should be appointed as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan. 13. As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The appearance of the petitioners for interview under the interim order of this Court could also be treated as part of next round and the petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 being successful in the interview should be appointed as Public Notaries, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan. 13. As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue certificate/licence and appointment orders to the petitioner No.1-Suresh Kumar Meena, petitioner No.3-Surendra Kumar Meena and the petitioner No.4-Rajendra Prasad Meena, for Notary Public, Government of India in the State of Rajasthan, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order. 14. Since the main petition has been allowed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.