BHUWAN LAL SAHU Vs. LEELADHAR PEASAD CHANDRAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment/order dated 1st of August, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 46/ 2011 (Leeladhar Prasad Chandrak v. State of Chhattisgarh), whereby the appointment of appellant Bhuwan Lal Sahu (respondent No 3 in writ petition) to the post of Notary was quashed and directed that the vacant seat should be filled up by issuing fresh advertisement. W.A. No. 383/2011 has been filed by appellant Bhuvanlal Sahu (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) whereas W.A. No. 404/2011 has been filed by appellant Leeladhar Chandrakar, petitioner of the writ petition. Since both the appeals involve similar facts and law, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the State published a notification in the year 2008 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Notaries in the territorial jurisdiction of Raipur Civil Court. Pursuant to the advertisement, the District Judge, Raipur prepared a list of 124 advocates and vide letter dated 25-10/ 24-11-2008 forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, along with their memorials for consideration to appoint on six vacant posts of Notary at Civil Court, Raipur and Tahsils. The name of appellant Bhuvanlal Sahu was at Serial No. 42. Petitioner Leeladhar made an application at a later stage; the same was submitted along with memorial on 22-1-2009 and this was also forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge to the State on 4-2-2009 making a note that though the case of the petitioner deserves to be rejected on account of late submission of the application, but since the decision was to be taken by the Government, the memorial was sent. Then it appears that vide letter dated 27-8-2009 the District and Sessions Judge was informed that the State Government has taken a decision to appoint petitioner Leeladhar as Notary along with 5 others namely Dharmendra Raut, Santosh Singh Thakur, Prabhulal Nayak, Bhupendra Sharma and Ku. Hemlata Singh. Accordingly, the District and Sessions Judge, Raipur vide memo dated 1-9-2009 informed appellant Leeladhar that his name was approved for consideration for appointment to the post of Notary and thus directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- by challan and submit a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/- so that requisite papers could be forwarded to the State for further proceedings. Accordingly, he deposited the challan of Rs. 1000/- and non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/-.

(3.) SO far as appellant Leeladhar is concerned, he has submitted his application after the cut-off date and in this regard an objection was raised by one K. Shrinivas, Advocate that the appointment of appellant Leeladhar was bad in law, therefore, his name was dropped before the appointment order could be issued to him. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly held that appellant Leeladhar cannot claim appointment against the vacancy which arose from quashing of appointment of Bhuwan Lal Sahu as the application of Leeladhar was received much after the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement.