Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SUNDAR, J.
R. Ravikumar & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell), Represented by the Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) Nos. 4692, 6192, 6193, 16903, 17892 & 17937 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 3742, 3743, 13488, 13489, 14404 & 14406 of 2019
Decided On : 15-11-2019
RPD Act - section 34 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appointment of Notaries - Appointment by Central Government - Quash same as illegal/unconstitutional - Undisputed facts are that instant cases pertain to a notice bearing reference issued by Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affairs regarding applications for appointment of Notaries in response to which there were applications – Ultimately appeared for interview out of which 748 were appointed. In this regard, number of Notaries that can be appointed by Central Government for various States have been limited by prescribing maximum number under Schedule to Notaries rules under the Notaries Act - On and maximum number of notaries who can be appointed for Tamil Nadu - There is no dispute that have been appointed as of today and there are 69 slots available/vacant - Crux and gravamen of the complaint of writ petitioners in these writ petitions is twofold - One is that process of interview and selection is flawed it was an eyewash and they are entitled to be appointed second aspect is some of the writ petitioners being persons with disability, they should have been accommodated by providing reservation in tune with section 34 of RPD Act - In this regard, earlier proceedings of this court are of relevance. Proceedings made by learned Predecessor Judge reads as follows – Held, For purpose of aforesaid reservation as already mentioned above, out of total permissible 1700 notaries for Tamil Nadu, only 1631 are now functioning and there are 69 vacant slots - With regard applicants, who appeared for interview were selected and were not - From and out of this 1560, those who qualify as persons with benchmark disabilities within the meaning of section 2( of RPD Act, shall now be called for interview and 68 (4% of 1700) of them shall be appointed in the vacant slots - To be noted, if there are already persons with benchmark disabilities in the 748 selectees, as they have got selection dehors the disability, they will remain selected as this is a one time measure - If 68 candidates with benchmark disability under RPD Act are not available from and out of this it is open to respondents to appoint Notaries in accordance with Notaries Act for the vacant slots that remain. If there are more than 68 candidates with benchmark disabilities from and out of these there shall be an inter-se selection by adopting the same methodology that was adopted earlier - To be noted, in the proceedings of this court made by learned Predecessor Judge which has been extracted and reproduced supra, there is a reference to a list of candidates who have not been selected but it is now submitted by Solicitor adverting to records that candidates not selected from and out of who appeared for interview - Second reason is, these are in the realm of disputed facts and these being writ petitions this court refrains itself from entering into that arena - Be that as it may, this court considers it appropriate to make a recommendation for days to come - Considering number of aspirants and ceiling qua number of notaries who can be appointed for each State it may well be desirable to consider option of conducting a written examination wherein better and more dependable scrutiny of candidates basic knowledge can be tested – Petition dismissed
ORDER :
(Prayer: W.P.(MD)Nos.4692, 16903 and 17937 of 2019 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 21.02.2019 with names of candidates for appointment as Notaries for the State of Tamil Nadu on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal/unconstitutional to the extent of non selection of the candidates under Persons with Disability category and consequently to direct the respondent to select and appoint the petitioner by following 4% reservation to the persons with disability as per Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 within the time stipulated by this Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
W.P.(MD)No.6192 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ by directing the second respondent Deputy legal Adviser and Competent authority to issue appointment letter to the petitioner F.No.N-11013/2091/2018-NC/Interview Sr.No.850 for appointment as Notary for entire Tamil Nadu and pass other order as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
W.P.(MD)No.6193 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ by directing the second respondent Deputy legal Adviser and Competent authority to issue appointment letter to the petitioner F.No.N-11013/2202/2018-NC/Interview Sr.No.961 for appointment as Notary for entire Tamil Nadu and pass other order as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
W.P.(MD)No.17892 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as one of the Notaries as recommended by third respondent to the Pettavaithalai area within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble High Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)
1. This common order will dispose of these six writ petitions.
2. All these six writ petitions have been filed by individuals who were unsuccessful in getting themselves appointed as Notaries for the State of Tamil Nadu by the Central Government.
3. Such appointment of Notaries for States (in this case, State of Tamil Nadu) by Central Government is under section 3 of 'The Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952)' (hereinafter referred to as 'Notaries Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience) and The Notaries Rules, 1956 being subordinate legislation made by the Central Government in exercise of Rule making powers under section 15 of Notaries Act. 'The Notaries Rules, 1956' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Notaries rules' for the sake of brevity and convenience.
4. Of the six writ petitioners, five have different disabilities within the meaning of 'Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49/2016)' (hereinafter 'RPD Act' for brevity). Therefore, prayers in five out of these six writ petitions turn on RPD Act.
5. Undisputed facts are that instant cases pertain to a notice dated 16.8.2018 bearing reference N-11013/1229/2018-NC issued by Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell) regarding applications for appointment of Notaries, in response to which there were 2603 applications. Ultimately, 2308 appeared for interview (295 absentees) out of which 748 were appointed. In this regard, number of Notaries that can be appointed by Cen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
