1 2025:CGHC:45551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4656 of 2025 Sushant Kumar Datta S/o Shri Prafull Datta, Aged About 60 Years R/o Kharsiya Road, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Regular Practitioner As Advocate At Tahsil Court, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal District And Sessions Judge, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - President/ Secretary, Bar Association, Tahsil Court Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Hem Prasad Patel S/o Rohit Kumar Patel, Occupation Advocate R/o Shahpur, Dharamjaigar, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Occupation Advocate 6 - Lalu Singh Thakur S/o Vishwanath Singh Thakur, R/o Maharana Pratap Chowk Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), Occupation Advocate ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash both the impugned appointment orders dated 15-07-2025 (Annexure P-1), which are issued to the respondent No.5 & 6 for their appointment on the post of Notary while deciding the representation of petitioner. 10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the appointment orders dated 15- 07-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 passed in favour of respondent No.5 & 6, whereby the respondent No.5 & 6 have been appointed for the post of Notary at Up Tahsil Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and relief(s) sought in the writ petition. It would be dealt with while discussing arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties. Further considering the fact that the petitioner also appeared at the interview conducted by the concerned authority who interviewed the petitioner as well as the concerned contesting respondents for the post of Notary. Thus, the petitioner took a chance to get himself selected at the said oral interview. Only because he did not find himself to has emerged successful as a result of his performance at interview, that he has filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of selection was unfair. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Full Bench of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 6. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get 4 selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. 7. In view of the above and taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference. However, petitioner is at liberty to file review application before the appropriate forum/authority. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant