S N BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a practicing advocate having being enrolled in July, 1997. On 19th August, 1987, he applied for being appointed a Notary under the Notary Act, 1952. On receipt of a letter dated 26th August, 1987 from the respondent that the memorial submitted by the petitioner was incomplete, the petitioner is stated to have submitted his memorial on September 01, 1987. It is the case of the petitioner that, though, he came to know that interviews were held on 08th March, 1990 for appointment of Notary, he was not called for interview and appointments were made without giving him an opportunity to appear before the interview board. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents not to appoint the petitioner as Notary, the present petition was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) In the counter affidavit the stand taken by the respondents is that interviews for consideration of the names of the persons who had submitted their memorials for appointment as Notaries was held on 08th March, 1990 and on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview the appointments were made. It is submitted that the seniority of the candidate is not taken into account for appointment as a Notary. It is submitted that on receipt of the memorial from the appropriate persons for appointment as Notary, the process in accordance with rules start and the candidates were called for interview on receipt of `No Objection Certificate' from the concerned Bar Councils association and after ascertaining the antecedents of the memorialists from the concerned authorities. It is submitted that after processing the memorials received from large number of advocates who applied for being appointed as Notary, the letters were issued to those memorialists who were found to be eligible and short listed for selection as Notary. It is submitted that only a few advocates are appointed as Notary depending upon the requirements and on the basis of their performance in the interview. It is submitted that on receipt of the memorial from the petitioner in 1987, the same was examined but since there was no requirement of appointing any Notary at the relevant time, he was not called for interview at that time.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner himself that appointment as Notary in the first instance is made for a period of three years and thereafter it is the discretion of the respondents to renew or not such appointment. In the present case the petitioner had applied for being appointed as Notary in the year 1987. The interviews were held in 1990. The Notaries who were appointed pursuant to the interview held in 1990 may or may not have relinquished their office as Notary by this time, however, on the basis of an application made in 1987, no mandamus can be issued at this stage to appoint the petitioner as a Notary. Moreover, only direction that may be is to consider the name of the petitioner and not to appoint him. Since a period of 16 years have elapsed from the date of making the application by the petitioner, it will not be appropriate to issue any directions in the present case. The petitioner, in my view, is not entitled to any relief in this petition. However, I direct that in case the petitioner again applies for being appointed as Notary, the respondents would consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Act and rules framed thereunder.