@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Ramasubramanian, J.@mdashThe Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to shift the place of interview from New Delhi to Chennai, for appointment of Notaries in the State of Tamil Nadu, insofar as Advocates hailing from Tamil Nadu are concerned.
2. Heard Mr. D. Selvam, Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
3. Under Section 3 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the Central Government for the whole or any part of India and any State Government for the whole or any part of the State, can appoint as Notaries, any legal practitioners or other persons who possess such qualifications as may be prescribed. Under Section 15 of the Act, the Central Government have the power to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. The matters for which provision could be made in the Rules, are listed out in Sub-section (2) of Section 15. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15, the qualifications of a Notary, the form and manner in which applications for appointment as a Notary may be made and the manner of disposal of such applications, are some of the matters in respect of which provision may be made in the Rules.
4. In exercise of the power so conferred by Section 15(1) of the Act, the Central Government issued the Notaries Rules, 1956. Rule 3 of the said Rules prescribes the following qualifications, without the possession of which, a person will not become eligible for appointment as a Notary:
(i) at least 10 years of practice as a lawyer;
(ii) at least 7 years of practice in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes;
(iii) at least 7 years of practice in the case of a woman;
(iv) a Member of the Indian Legal service under the Central Government;
(v) at least 10 years as a Member of a Judicial service;
(vi) at least 10 years of office under Central Government or State Government requiring special knowledge of law after enrollment as an Advocate; and
(vii) at least 10 years of holding office in the Department of a Judge Advocate General or in the Legal Department of the Armed Forces.
5. A person fulfilling any one of the above conditions, may make an application under Rule 4(1), through the concerned District Judge or the Presiding Officer of the Court or the Tribunal where he practices as an Advocate. The application should be in the form of a memorial addressed to the competent authority. The memorial should be signed by the applicant and countersigned by the persons whose names are indicated in clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.
6. Upon an application being submitted to the competent authority, the competent authority may reject the same in terms of Rule 6(1), if the applicant does not possess the qualifications specified in Rule 3 or if a previous application of the same applicant was rejected six months before the date of the application.
7. If the application of a person is not rejected in terms of Rule 6(1), the competent authority should ascertain from the Bar Council or the Bar Association or other authority in the area where the applicant proposes to practise, objections if any to the appointment of the person concerned as a Notary. This is under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules.
8. After receipt of the objections from the Bar Council or the Bar Association under Rule 6(2)(b), the competent authority should hold an enquiry under Rule 7(1). While holding the said enquiry, the competent authority should give an opportunity to the applicant, to make his representations against the objections received from the Bar Council or Bar Association. Thereafter, the competent authority should submit a report to the appropriate Government, whether the applicant could be allowed to appear before the Interview Board or not. It is only after such a preliminary scrutiny and a decision taken on the question whether to permit an applicant to appear before the Interview Board or not, that an aspirant for being appointed as a Notary, will be called to attend an interview. The constitution of the Interview Board is stipulated in Rule 7-A. Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7-A, the applicants, whose names or whose applications are allowed by the appropriate Government, can be asked to appear before the Interview Board on the date, time and place fixed, to judge their competency for being appointed as a Notary. Based upon the performance in the interview, the Board shall submit its recommendations to the appropriate Government. Thereafter, the appropriate Government may consider the recommendation and allow the application under Rule 8(1).
9. A careful scrutiny of Rule 7-A shows that the competent authority is entitled to direct the applicant to appear before the Interview Board, on the date, time and place fixed. Therefore, the power of the competent authority to fix the date, time and place for interview cannot be questioned in the first instance.
10. Under Rule 7-A(2), the Interview Board has to be constituted by the appropriate Government from amongst its officers dealing with legal matters. The Chairperson of the Interview Board is to be an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government. Therefore, it is clear that the other members of the Three Member Interview Board, could be of the same or subordinate rank to that of Joint Secretary.
11. Keeping in mind the Scheme of the Act and the Rules, if we come back to the factual scenario, it is seen that many persons from Tamil Nadu, who had applied for appointment as Notary, were invited for interview in the month of April, 2014. Their applications had already been subjected to preliminary scrutiny under Rule 6(1) and it was only thereafter that those persons were called for interview at Delhi.
12. But, unfortunately, the interviews were cancelled at the last minute, in view of the notification for General Elections having already been issued. Therefore, many persons who went from Tamil Nadu, returned empty-handed and many persons had to cancel their tickets at the last minute.
13. Now, the respondents have constituted an Interview Board and proposed to conduct the interviews at Delhi from 16th September, 2014. A total of about 954 candidates have been shortlisted for interview at Delhi. Finding it difficult to undertake another trip, those persons have made representations to various Bar Associations. Those Bar Associations have, in turn, approached the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Therefore, the Bar Council has come up with the above writ petition.
14. The Additional Legal Adviser in the Department of Legal Affairs has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the Bar Council has no locus standi to question the decision of the respondents to conduct interviews at Delhi. According to the respondents, none of the candidates invited for interview, has questioned the place of interview. Therefore, the respondents contend that the writ petition has to be dismissed for lack of locus standi.
15. But, I do not think that the above contention can be upheld. A total of about 954 candidates have been found eligible to appear for interview. Those candidates have made representations through their associations to the Bar Council. One of the duties of the Bar Council is to look after the welfare of the Advocates who are on its rolls. Therefore, I do not think that the locus standi of the petitioner could be questioned.
16. Placing reliance upon Rule 7-A(1), it is contended by Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General that it is for the competent authority to decide the date, time and place fixed and that the same cannot be questioned. Strictly construed, Rule 7-A(1) appears to support the said contention.
17. But, that is not the end of the issue. Once hundreds of applicants were shortlisted and called for interview in April, 2014 and once interviews scheduled to be held at that time were cancelled, the respondents owe a public duty not to repeatedly make the aspirants travel from Chennai to Delhi. It is not a question of the right of the individuals who apply for appointment as Notary. It is also a question of hardship for the candidates.
18. I cannot lose sight of the fact that just 20% of the members of Bar, corner 80% of the work in the Courts and remaining 80% have very little work left over. Therefore, to make all of them undertake a trip for a second time is not fair enough.
19. The fact that persons from Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have already participated in the interviews at Delhi without any protest cannot really make a difference. Some persons may find it convenient because of the nearness of their location to reach Delhi by a travel overnight. But, persons who live in the southernmost corner of the State may find it difficult to travel to Delhi. It is public knowledge that getting train tickets these days, is impossible.
20. The contention that officers of the Central Government, who have other duties to perform, may not be able to spare time continuously for about 15 days to go out of Delhi cannot also be accepted. As per Rule 7-A(2), the Interview Board is to comprise of three persons, the Chairperson of which alone should be of a rank not lower than that of the Joint Secretary to Government. It is always easy for the Government machinery to depute three officers to go over to Chennai to conduct the interviews for about a week, rather than asking nearly 1000 candidates to travel up to Delhi from all the nooks and corners of the State.
21. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner and hold interviews, at least in one place in Tamil Nadu, preferably in Chennai, so that all persons shortlisted for interview could come to Chennai and attend the same on the dates and time fixed by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed.
