Mahendra Kumar Shukla vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

By this petition, the Petitioner impugns the letter dated 17-10-2008 (Annexure-P/16) by which the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs intimated the Under Secretary, Department of General Administration with regard to cancellation of appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Notary on the basis of complaint received against him and appointment of one Venkat Prasad Gupta. The Petitioner further challenges the communication dated 27-10-2009 (Annexure-P/20) by which the Petitioner has been intimated about the rejection of his representation. The Petitioner also prays for setting aside the Notary Profession Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent Venkat Prasad Gupta and to appoint him on the post of Notary as per the proceedings of the note sheet dated 19-8-2008 (Annexure-P/8).

The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the case, are that after completion of LL.B. degree, the name of the Petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate bearing enrollment No. CG/2247/1998/Adv., as is evident from the Advocate Identity Card (Annexure-P/3). On the basis of memo dated 8-5-2008 (Annexure -P/4) issued by the Clerk of Court, office of the District and Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, with regard to two vacant posts of Notary, the Petitioner along with Ors.s applied for the same. According to the Petitioner, after completion of all formalities, the Petitioner was selected and his name found place at S. No. 1, as per the proceedings dated 19-8-2008 (Annexure-P/8). In the meantime, one Maheshwar Shukla (Respondent No. 6 herein) filed a complaint against the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner is not having requisite experience. On the basis of the said complaint, the candidature of the Petitioner has been rejected and in his place one Venkat Prasad Gupta (Respondent No. 4 herein) has been appointed as Notary. Thus, this petition.

Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the name of the Petitioner was at S. No. 1 in the note sheet proceedings, for consideration and appointment on one post of Notary. The Petitioner being at S. No. 1 has to be considered and appointed first. If the Petitioner declines to accept the post of Notary in that event only Ors. names should be considered. Shri Shrivastava further submits that before rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner, there should be a proper notice to the Petitioner to put forward his case, but the same has not been done in the case on hand. The impugned action of the Respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. They are acting with mala fide intension against the Petitioner only to harass him.

On the Ors. hand, Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the Petitioner does not acquire any right on the basis that his name was at S. No. 1, in the noting of minutes, though the list was not prepared on the basis of any test or merit.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

The Petitioner has challenged the proceedings, which is neither binding nor effective till it is converted to a proper order. Thus, challenge to the proceedings is not at all maintainable. Upon perusal of the record it appears that the Petitioner belong to general category. The maximum experience for general category candidates is 10 years. The name of the Petitioner was enrolled as an advocate on 11-10-1998 and the period of ten years would come to an end on 10-10-2008, but the Petitioner has filed his application for the post of Notary before 10-10-2008. Therefore, he has not acquired the requisite experience. Even Otherwise, the Petitioner has not challenged the validity of any order of appointment. The entire challenge is to the contents of the note sheet, which cannot be made effective as it is without there being any formal order on the basis of said notings.

The Ors. contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is without any basis, as there is no scheme for affording an opportunity of hearing to all the applicants before appointment. The Petitioner is mere applicant for the post of Notary. By making an application a candidate does hot acquire any right to the post. The Petitioner has failed to establish his case.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.