Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2010
Writ Petition No.12012/2008
14.7.2010
Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent No. 1.
Shri Kunal Thakre, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
Ms. Chhoti Kushram, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that issue raised in this petition has been settled at rest by an order passed by a Division Bench vide order dated 19.2.2010 passed in W.A. No. 167/2009 whereby, while affirming the order dated 5.1.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 7328/2008 their Lordships were pleased to observe:
"16. In the instant matters what District Judge has done that he has invited the objections from the Bar Association, no objection was received and thereafter has forwarded the list of all the persons arranged in order of seniority to the State Government. The District Judge has totally failed to act as per the mandate of Rule 7(3) of the Rules. It was incumbent upon the District Judge to send the names arranged in order of suitability of the incumbents whom he has considered to be appropriate having due regard to knowledge and experience, extent of practice and fitness, which has not been done in the instant case. Thus the learned Single Judge is justified in quashing the consequential action taken on the basis of violation of Rule 7(3) of the Rules.2
17. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the District Judge should be permitted to conduct oral interview of the incumbents. We do not go to that extent as oral interview is contemplated in the next stage after recommendation is made by the competent authority to the State Government, however, in order to ascertain the suitability, it is open to him to make such inquiry as he deems fit. He is free to call the candidates to find out the suitability as per Rule 7 of the Rules but simply calling a candidate to elicit an information would not amount to interviewing him, it would only be step in aid in order to form an opinion under Rule 7(3) of the Rules. When the competent authority applies the mind to the requirement of Rule 7(3), which may be applicable in the case, it should appear from the noting of the file that the competent authority has made the recommendation after due compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. He is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner. The appointment of notary, as already mentioned, is an important job and names of only honest persons with integrity should be recommended by the District Judge, not the names of all the incumbents in order of their seniority or category wise as done in the instant case. The eligibility of an incumbent is a different aspect than assessing the suitability. Arranging the names in order of seniority cannot be said to be as per suitability. A person's suitability has to be adjudged on the basis of objective criteria as laid down in the Rules. It has been considered, must reflect from the file. The competent authority cannot shirk from it's significant responsibility enjoined upon him under the Rules to ensure that incompetent and dishonest incumbents are not appointed as notary on political basis and eliminated at grass root level. Recommendation of the District Judge serves the purpose of weeding out such elements from the zone of 3 consideration who are not otherwise fit and suitable as per the requirements of the Rules. The District and Session Judges are expected to rise to the occasion, select the persons for recommending the names as per the criteria which has been laid down under the Rules and not to oblige every incumbent by sending the entire list to the State Government which amounts not only shirking from duty but tantamounts to flagrant violation of the rules at the end of the competent authority which cannot be tolerated even for a moment. Thus District and Session Judges to be careful in future in making the recommendation. It has to be ensured that only the names of suitable persons be recommended as per requirements of Rules."
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 5.9.2008 so far as it relates to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is hereby quashed.
(SANJAY YADAV) J U D G E Vivek Tripathi