1 2025:CGHC:56707-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 844 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) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Lagislative, 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.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.21 17:17:43 +0530 2 4 - President/ Secretary Bar Association Up Tahsil Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Hem Prasad Patel S/o Rohit Kumar Patel Occupation - Advocate, R/o Shahpur, Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Lalu Singh Thakur S/o Vishwanath Singh Thakur R/o Maharana Pratap Chowk, Chhal, Tahsil - Dharanjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Atul Gavel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.11.2025 1. Heard Shri Atul Gavel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been 8led by the appellant against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4656/2025 (Sushant Kumar Datta vs. 3 State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition 8led by the appellant is dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant /writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing advocate, enrolled with the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh in the year 1990, and has completed 35 years of continuous practice at Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, making him senior and more experienced than other applicants for the post of Notary. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.10.2023 issued by respondent No. 3 inviting applications for two posts of Notary at Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, the petitioner submitted his application on 26.10.2023. Thereafter, he was called for an interview through video conferencing on 08.05.2025 along with 16 shortlisted candidates, and the interview was conducted on 28.05.2025. However, despite his seniority and long-standing practice, respondents No. 5 and 6 were selected vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2025, which is assailed as arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is arbitrary and contrary to law, as the appointments of respondents No. 5 and 4 6 dated 15.07.2025 to the post of Notary for Tahsil Dharamjaigarh have been made in violation of Rule 7(3)(a) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, which mandates that an applicant must ordinarily reside in the area where he proposes to practice; whereas respondent No. 6 is admittedly not a resident of Dharamjaigarh but resides at Chhal, around 45 km away, thereby defeating the purpose of providing local notarial services. It is submitted that the appellant has been practicing as an advocate at Dharamjaigarh since 1990, is duly enrolled with the State Bar Council, is far more senior and experienced than respondents No. 5 and 6, and is a permanent resident of Dharamjaigarh, yet his candidature was ignored without assigning any lawful reason. The authorities also failed to accord due preference to a local and more meritorious candidate, and despite the appellant’s representation after the impugned order, no consideration has been made. Hence, the appointments are illegal, arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the order of the learned Single Judge and pointed out that this 5 Court, in WA No. 590 of 2025 by order dated 11.08.2025, has already considered and decided the same question. 6. The material facts are not in dispute: the appellant appeared for the interview called by the competent authority and was interviewed along with the contesting candidates, namely respondents No. 5 and 6. The appellant accepted the process and chose to participate in the selection proceedings. It is well- settled that a candidate who voluntarily participates in a competitive selection process and is unsuccessful cannot ordinarily challenge the result on the ground that the process was unfair, unless he demonstrates irregularity, mala 8de or illegality in the selection procedure which had a material bearing on the outcome. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), this Court held that where a candidate appeared at an examination or interview without protest and thereafter, upon 8nding himself unsuccessful, challenges the process, relief should not normally be granted in the absence of compelling proof of irregularity. 7. Applying that principle to the present case, the appellant has not pointed to any contemporaneous objection during the 6 selection process, nor has he produced convincing material to show that the selection process was vitiated by mala 8de, patent illegality, or colourable exercise of power by the appointing authority. The mere assertion that respondents No. 5 and 6 are not residents of Tahsil Dharamjaigarh and therefore ineligible, without cogent documentary proof that they were, at the relevant time, disquali8ed under Rule 7(3)(a) of the Notary Rules, 1956, is insuFcient to upset the selection. The burden to establish illegality or non-compliance with the statutory eligibility criteria lies on the challenger. 8. In addition, the question raised in this appeal is substantially similar to the issue which this Court addressed in WA No. 590 of 2025 by order dated 11.08.2025. No fresh, distinguishable ground of challenge has been advanced which would require us to depart from the view taken earlier. 9. For the foregoing reasons ---- (i) the appellant voluntarily participated in the interview and therefore ran the risk of an adverse result; (ii) no convincing material has been placed on record to show that the selection was vitiated by mala 8de, patent illegality or colourable exercise of power; and (iii) the matter is not distinguishable from the decision already 7 rendered by this Court on 11.08.2025 - we 8nd no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 10.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 10.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib