MUKUND MAROTIRAO KHANTI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suryakant Chandrakar (petitioner in W.P. No. 3715/1998), Mukund Marotirao Khanti (petitioner in W.P. No. 2704/98) as also Smt. Gyani Lunia, (respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions), Manju Kiran Kalia (respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 3715/98 and respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 2704/98), Gopinath Sao (respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 3715/98 and respondent No. 4 in W.P. 2704/98), hereinafter referred to as the 'appointees', besides 9 other persons were candidates for appointment as notaries in Mahasamund Tahsil of the District of Raipur. Petitioners being aggrieved by their non-appointments and appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5 aforesaid, have filed the present writ petitions and pray for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint them as notaries for Mahasamund Tahsil for a period of 5 years with effect from 30th of July 1998 and to quash the appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5 as notaries.

(2.) Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 2, the District and Sessions Judge, Raipur i.e., the competent authority, issued notice dated 24th of Sept. 1997 inviting memorials in prescribed format for appointment of two posts of notaries in Mahasamund Tahsil. Petitioner as also respondents No. 3 to 5; besides nine other persons submitted their memorials. Vide GSR 370 (E) dated 8th of July 1997, certain modifications were made in Form-I, which is the form prescribed for submission of memorial under Rule 4 of the Notary Rules 1956. It seems that the State Government brought to the notice of the competent authority that the memorials submitted by the applicants are not in prescribed format and accordingly the competent authority by its letter dated 16th of January 1998 addressed to the President of the Advocates' Association, Mahasamund informed him that the applicants be apprised to submit the memorials in the prescribed format. In the said communication, names of all the persons who were applicants for appointment as notary were mentioned.

(3.) It is the stand of petitioners that the aforesaid communication of the competent authority addressed to the President of the Advocates' Association was not brought to their notice and consequently they did not submit the memorial in the prescribed format as amended by GSR 370 (E) dated 8th of July 1997. This assertion of the petitioners has been denied and an affidavit filed by the President of Bar Association has been placed on record to demonstrate that in fact, petitioners were informed about the communication of the State Government asking them to send the memorial in prescribed format. After issuance of the aforesaid letter to the President of Advocates' Association, 7 persons did submit the memorials in prescribed format and 7 persons including petitioners did not do so. The competent authority, thereafter, by communication dated 9th of February 1998 addressed to the President of Advocates' Association brought to his notice, failure of 7 applicants, including the petitioners in not submitting the memorials in the prescribed format. In the said communication, the President was informed to apprise the candidates of submitting the memorials within 4 days. Petitioners did not submit the memorials in the amended form. Petitioners seek to explain that by saying that the aforesaid communication of the competent authority was not brought to their notice; which assertion as stated earlier has been denied by the President of Advocates' Association. The competent authority considered the memorials of 7 persons and forwarded the same to the State Government. The State Government by the impugned order has appointed respondents No. 3 to 5 as notaries.