Madras High Court
S.Vijayakumar vs The Secretary on 15 April, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
S.Vijayakumar ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Secretary
Department of Legal Affairs
Ministry of Law & Justice
Government of India
4th Floor A-Wing
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi-110 001
2.The Deputy Legal Adviser and
Competent Authority
Department of Legal Affairs
Ministry of Law & Justice
Government of India Notary Cell
4th Floor A-Wing Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi-110 001 ... Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 9
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 15.11.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.6192 of 2019, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi
Central Government Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This writ appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order
dated 15.11.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.6192 of 2019, which is a common order in
totally six writ petitions.
2. The case of the writ petitioners may not have any bearing on the
case of the appellant / writ petitioner herein, becase those writ petitioners
were all physically challenged candidates. The writ petitions were disposed of
by issuing certain directions, but in Paragraph No.50 of the impugned order,
the prayer sought for by the appellant before us has also been negatived. We
may not be required to labour much to go into the details of the reasonings
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
given by the learned Single Bench on account of the fact that the Central
Government had filed W.A.(MD) Nos.1129 to 1134 of 2020 against the order
and direction issued in respect of the writ petitioners, who were physically
challenged candidates. By Judgment dated 10.02.2021, the writ appeals were
allowed and the reasonings of the learned Single Bench in respect of the scope
and applicability of the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act
to the case of appointment of Notaries were set aside. However, in the
penultimate portion of the Judgment, the appellant therein, as one time
measurement, was directed to consider the case of the physically challenged
candidates, who have applied for being considered for appointment as Central
Government Notary. In the light of the Judgment rendered by the Honourable
Division Bench, to which one of us (S.Ananthi, J.) was a party, the substantial
portion of the observations and directions made by the learned Writ Court
does not survive. However, we find that there is no specific reasoning given in
the impugned order with regard to the prayer sought for by the appellant /
writ petitioner before us, which is also got negatived.
3. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondents submitted that already more than 700 candidates have
been selected and appointed as Central Government Notary for the State of
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
Tamil Nadu and the same has been notified in the Government Gazette and
the appellant / writ petitioner before us has not challenged the same.
4. Under normal circumstances, we would sustain the objection
raised by the Central Government, but, however in the instant case, since
there is no specific communication or reason for non-selection having not
been made known to the candidates, the appellant / writ petitioner cannot be
fully faulted for not having questioned the selection list.
5. Secondly, the appellant / writ petitioner may not be required to
do so, because there are more than seventy vacancies still existing and
assuming the candidature of the appellant / writ petitioner is considered,
none of the candidates, who have been selected, will be aggrieved. The
appellant / writ petitoner has been before this Court ever since 2014 and his
application dates back to 28.03.2014. His application was returned on the
ground that some of the columns were not filled up by him. Therefore, the
appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the same by filing W.P.(MD) No.
15709 of 2014. The said writ petition was allowed with certain directions.
The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
“11. Sofar as the furnishing of details regarding
the notaries available in the area, it is the specific case of
the petitioner that he has personally made enquiries in the
District Court and the Collectorate regarding the data or
the materials available with them regarding the number of
notary publics in the area and they were not able to
furnish any particulars. Therefore, the petitioner thought
fit to leave the column unfilled, since if he furnishes any
particulars it would amount to furnishing wrong
particulars. The stand taken by the petitioner is fully
justified. It is to be noted that the learned Principal
District Judge of concerned District has forwarded the
petitioner's application to the second respondent. In the
said application the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Madurai, Senior Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, a
Jewelery Merchant, Chairman and Managing Director of
Vadamalayan Hospital and District Governor of Lions
Clubs International District 324-B3 have counter signed.
In such circumstances, the social standing and the
certification made by the people of the area cannot be
ignored. Further, the respondents themselves have the
data available with them as regards the number of notary
publics, who have been authorized in Madurai District.
12. It is to be noted that earlier about ten years
back, the Madurai District had the Principal District Court
and other subordinate Courts and for the last ten years,
the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has been
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
functioning with average strength of twelve Honourable
Judges and all the southern districts have been allotted to
the Madurai Bench and all cases arising from the
southern districts have to be filed before the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court. This is also one additional
factor, which has to be borne in mind, while assessing the
requirements of the notary public by the respondents.
Hence, non-furnishing of the data, which is not available
with the petitioner, cannot be put against him. Moreso
when the respondents themselves are bound to have such
information in their records. Therefore, the rejection and
return of the petitioner's application for not filling up the
column No.10(3) of the application form is held to be not
tenable.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned letter, dated 29.08.2014, issued by the
second respondent is quashed and the petitioner is
directed to resubmit his application for considering him as
notary public along with a copy of this order and duly
certified copies of graduation certificates. On receipt of
the same, the respondents shall consider and process the
petitioner's application in accordance with the Notaries
Rules, 1956, within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order, in any event prior to the
date on which the interview is scheduled to be held. No
costs.”
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
6. The Central Government preferred a writ appeal against the said
order in W.A.(MD) No.1260 of 2014 and it was disposed of by Judgment dated
12.01.2016 by permitting the appellant before us to apply afresh to the next
selection and directing the Central Government to consider the same in
accordance with law. This is how the second application has been filed by the
appellant on 02.05.2016. Considering the above factors and also the fact that
the appellant before us is not aware as to the reasons for his non-selection, we
are inclined to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to consider his
case on merits and in accordance with law.
7. In the light of the above, the respondents are directed to
consider the appellant's application and pass appropriate orders on merits
and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that this Judgment is
delivered considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it
should not be treated as a precedent.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
8. With the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. No
costs.
[T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
15.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
To:
1.The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
Government of India,
4th Floor A-Wing,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Deputy Legal Adviser and
Competent Authority,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
Government of India Notary Cell,
4th Floor A-Wing Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.420 of 2021
15.04.2021
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
