Allowed

V.C. Anil Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023WP(C)/19495/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed this writ petition and quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's candidature for Notary appointment without reasons. The Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the application with proper compliance to statutory procedural requirements within three months. The Court noted the Minister was not the competent authority under the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Rejection order (Ext.P9) set aside; direction to competent authority to reconsider petitioner's candidature within three months with strict compliance to procedural requirements.

V.C. Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19495 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.C. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P. VELAYUDHA NAIR, RESIDING AT T. C 28/746, BINDU, PUNNAPURAM, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 024. BY ADVS. M.BALAGOVINDAN LAL KUMAR N.(K/2014/2021)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69 1001.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

3 THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

4 TH ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

5 K. VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, PURNAMI, PAZHAVILA, PANTHALACODE P.O., VATTAPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 028.

¶14

6 N. BENSER, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE PUTHUKULANGARA VEEDU, SANTHWANAM, MADATHATTUVILA, VATTAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 695 132.

¶15

7 DILEEP KHAN P., AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, KURANDIPALLY, VEEDU, UNDAPPARA, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 575.

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

8	C.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
	AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, GREEN VILLA, MOTTAMOODU NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 020
9	SINDHU L., AGED NOT KNOWN ADVOCATE, KUNNIL HOUSE, NEAR IYYAR MADAM, PURAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 304.
10	LEDGAR BAVA.G., AGE NOT KNOWN,. ADVOCATE, CARMEL VILLA BENCH P.O.
	THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 007.
11	ANITHA K., AGE NOT KNOWN , ADVOCATE T.C. 2/1645(1) GRA 361, NEAR GOWREESA TEMPLE, GOWRESSAPATTOM PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 004.
12	NISSAM, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE,
	THETTIKUZHI HOUSE, CHANNANKARA P.O., KANIYAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 315.
13	V. PRATHAP SINGH, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE,
	RETA VILAS, T.C. 8/888 , THIRUMALA P.O.,
	THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 006.
14	SREEJA TULASI, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, T.C. 24/1247
	SREEPRIYA, VALIYASALA , CHALAI P.O.
	THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695 036.
15	SANGEETHA, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE, SEREEVALSOM, SNRA 72, SREE NAGAR, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O.,
	THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 005.
16	P.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, ADVOCATE T C 28/754, PUNNAPURAM, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024. BY ADVS.
	SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA M.M.DEEPA S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI UNNIRAJA T.I. AJITH KRISHNAN C.R.SIVAKUMAR
	S.RAJEEV
	P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
	SACHITHANANDA PAI

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. D.KISHORE K.J.SAJI ISAAC K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN V.VINAY SARATH K.P. M.S.ANEER JOHN VARGHESE (VEYKKAN) R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA) JITHIN SAJI ISAAC ELIZABATH VARKEY S.G.SREEKANTH(K/755/2011) S.BADUSHA(K/673/2010) SREEJITH S.(K/002264/2019) JOEL ANTONY GEORGE(K/742/2020) FAHEEM AHSAN.S(K/001986/2019) U.V.DEEPU(K/957/2004) K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH STATE ATTORNEY()

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶26

========================= W.P.(C).No. 19495 of 2021 ========================== Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2023

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

When this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the parties were ad idem that the legal issues involved in this case have already been noticed by a learned Judge of this Court and answered in Abdul Kareem M. T.P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (1)

¶29

KHC 666].

¶30

Compendiously, the petitioner applied to be a Notary and was called for interview, as per the statutory mandate; but was then rejected through Ext.P9, without citing any reason.

¶31

It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Lal Kumar N., that the sole reason why his client's candidature was rejected was because the files were placed before the Hon'ble Minister, who took a decision to such effect, but for no cogent reason. He argued that the Hon'ble Minister is neither the competent Authority, nor the Authorized officer under the statutory scheme; and, therefore, that Ext.P9 – which is the culmination of such rejection – is illegal and unlawful.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader – Sri.K.R.Ranjith, in response, submitted that the allegations of the petitioner are

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

wholly untenable and uncharitable because, his candidature was not rejected for any reason which is confutative, but only because there were large number of candidates, requiring a process of elimination from among them, since the number of vacancies is extremely limited. He, however, conceded to a pointed question from this Court, that Ext.P9 does not cite any reason, nor does any of the pleadings on record offer it. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the case of the petitioner can be reconsidered by the competent Authority, adverting to his credentials, as also that of the persons who have already been appointed.

¶36

I have no doubt that the afore suggestion of the learned Government Pleader is the best available in the given circumstances, even for the respondents because, rejection of the candidature of a lawyer, who had applied for the post of Notary, without any reason, casts serious aspersions on his credentials. This is more so when, nothing has been placed on record as to why he has been found to be unsuitable for the post in question .

¶37

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority under the Act, to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner subject to law and in scrupulous compliance of the

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

procedural requirements.

¶41

The resultant order shall be communicated to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶43

anm

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

¶47

PETITIO	NER EXHIBI	TS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE LAW SECRETARY TO THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.08.2020 BEARING NO. 27872/H2/2013 /............ ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNESS OF KERALA.
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED ON 02.11.2020 UNDER RTI ACT.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION, SUBMITTED BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT DATED 301.2020 BEARING NO. 16525/H2/2020/.............
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF LIST OF APPLICANT ATTENDED THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED FOR NOTARY APPOINTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF LIST OF ADVOCATES WHO HAVE APPOINTED AS NOTARIES 2020 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2021 UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 10.03.2021 BEARING NO. 4045/H2/2021/LAW SUBMITTED BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 07.05.2021 BEARING NO. 27872/H2/2013/... ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27TH JANUARY 2021 BEARING NO. 334/H2/2021/LAW OF LAW (H), DEPARTMENT PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE.
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.06.2021 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
RESPOND	ENTS' EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	R6(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/8/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit	R10(a)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.08.2020 INTIMATING THE PLACE, DATE AND TIME OF INTERVIEW.

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 19495 of 2021

¶49

: 8 :

¶50

Exhibit R15(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R16(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW Exhibit R16(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 26524/H2/LAW DATED 12.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit R16(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE ISSUED TO P.S RADHAKRISHNAN

V.C. Anil Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.C. Anil Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishnan Nair T.P. Vs State Bank of India

Shajahan Vs Union of India

Gopika Jaya Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Anil D Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ashraf M. a. Vs Banking Ombudsman

Universal Tele Service, Represented by Its Proprietor, Rajesh Babu Vs the Chief General Manager (Telecom)