Madras High Court
M.Sivasubramanian vs Dr.Nitenchandra on 8 February, 2023
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
M.Sivasubramanian ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Dr.NitenChandra,
Secretary,
The Government of India,
Law & Justice Department,
4th Floor 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Mr.Niraj Kumar
The Deputy Legal Advisor and
Competent Authority (Noraties)
Ministry of Law & Justice
The Government of India,
4th Floor 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001. ...Respondents
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceeding against the alleged respondents for
willfully and deliberately disobeying the judgment dated 22.03.2022 of this
Court passed in W.P.No.33977 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Lourdu Savio
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Addl. Solicitor General
assisted by
Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
Contempt is alleged as against order dated 22.03.2022 passed in
W.P.No.33977 of 2019. The said order was one passed in a batch of Writ
Petitions challenging the process of appointment to the post of Notary Public
in Puducherry.
2. The operative portion of order dated 22.03.2022 and the conclusion
is as follows:
“12. While I am inclined to set aside the entire process of
appointments made in the aforesaid irregular manner, I
believe that credence must be had to the fact that 25
appointments have been made properly and those advocates
are stated to be holding positions as Notary Public since 2019
onwards. In my view, there is nothing to be gained by
disturbing their appointments.
13. Admittedly and as on date, there are another 28
posts that are vacant. Let the applications of the petitioners
before me be considered for appointment in the 28 available
vacancies, subject to they being competent and otherwise
qualified. They shall be appointed and orders to such effect
shall be passed, within a period of four weeks from today.
14. W.P.Nos.7049, 7054, 3746, 3749, 3751, 3752, 3755,
13007 & 13010 of 2020 & 10215 of 2019, are disposed in the
aforesaid terms. W.P.No.33977 of 2019 seeking mandamus is
dismissed as no mandamus is liable to be issued in respect of
selection, such selection involving a factual determination that
the candidate in question is possessed of the requisite
qualifications. However, the interest of this petitioner is also
covered in the direction as above, in the case of the other
petitioners. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
3. The Writ Petition of the Contempt Petitioner has been dismissed,
since the prayer was for mandamus and I was of the view that no mandamus
is liable to be issued in respect of his selection which involves determination
as to whether the candidate is eligible for the post for which selection is
sought. However, since the other Writ Petitions that had been closed
directing the respondents to consider the available applications before them
on merits, the petitioner in W.P.No.33977 of 2019 was extended the same
benefit.
4. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein at
paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, it is stated as follows:
“5. I respectfully submit that the minimum qualifying cut-off
mark (pass mark) was 60 out of 100 and the petitioner scored
only 51 out of 100. This Hon'ble Court in its order while
dismissing the writ petition of the contempt petitioner was
pleased to make it clear that petitioner has to be considered
subject to him being competent and otherwise qualified. Thus,
on consideration of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner
could not be selected and appointed as Notary Public since he
had not secured the minimum cut off mark. Hence, the
petitioner is not entitled to get the same by filing contempt
petition which is a misuse of process of Law and Court
especially in view of the fact that the petitioner's writ petition
was dismissed and this Hon'ble Court subject to the direction
to consider the petitioners subject to they being competent and
otherwise qualified.
6.I respectfully submit that a fresh Notary Interview was
conducted by this Department on 16-17th July, 2022, wherein
the following Writ Petitioners whose petitions had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
disposed off vide common order dated 22.03.2022 have
applied and were selected –
S.No. Name of Petitioner W.P.No. Result at
S.No.
1 R.Rajaprakash 10215 of 2019 13
2 R.Nagalakshmy 3746 of 2020 63
3 J.Vanitha 3751 of 2020 39
4 V.Jayamarimuthu 3752 of 2020 23
5 M.Periyanayaki Mary 3755 of 2020 24
Mani
6 S.Prebagaran 13007 of 2020 96
7 B.Inba Gunasekar 13010 of 2020 94
8 R.Praveen Kumar 3749 of 2020 20
5. The individuals tabulated as 1 to 8 above are the petitioners whose
cases were considered in paragraphs 13 and 14 of order dated 22.03.2022.
Pending Writ Petitions, there was a call for applications on 29.06.2022 and
admittedly, the 8 persons whose details are tabulated above have responded
to that call.
6. Also, admittedly, as conveyed by learned counsel for the petitioner
before me now, that there was no response by this petitioner to that call, since
he was of the view that it would comprise his Writ Petition. Thus, a
conscious and deliberate decision has been taken by the petitioner to rest
content with the application made by him at the first instance which has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
come to be considered by the respondents and found lacking.
7. As per the counter filed by the respondents, the application of the
petitioner which was already on record was considered and it was found that
he had obtained 51 out of 100 marks, whereas, the cut off was 60 marks out
of 100. It is for the aforesaid reason that the petitioner was not called for the
interview conducted on 16th and 17th of July, 2022 in which 8 candidates
tabulated above, were called and found successful for appointment as Notary
Public.
8. In light of the narration above, I find no irregularity in the process
much less contempt committed by the respondents and this Contempt Petition
is dismissed. No costs.
9. The respondents shall communicate the marks obtained by the
petitioner and the basis on which his application for appointment as Notary
Public was rejected in order to enable him to take further action in this regard,
if he so desires. Let this be done within a period of two (2) weeks from date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
08.02.2023
sl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
Sl
Cont.P.No.2617 of 2022
08.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
