1 2025:CGHC:55760-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 826 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Dansena S/o Late N.S. Dansena Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kumarta, Tahsil (Kapoo) (Wrongly Mentioned As Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh), District Raigarh (C.G.), Regular Practitioner As Advocate At Up Tahsil Kapoo, (Wrongly Mentioned As Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh), District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant(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, Up Tahsil Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Pintu Prasad Soni S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Soni R/o Village Ward No. 11, Nichepara, Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), Occupation Advocate 6. Vivekanand Shukla S/o Late Durga Prasad Shukla R/o C.M.P.D.I., Colony, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), Occupation Advocate ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.17 17:42:08 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4572 of 2025 (Manoj Kumar Dansena vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 05.10.2023 respondent No. 1 issued an order calling for details and the bio-data of eligible advocates willing to be considered for appointment as Notary for various tahsils, including two posts for Tahsil Kapoo. It is further submitted that on 06.10.2023 respondent No. 3 issued a similar notice inviting details and bio-data of eligible advocates for appointment as Notary, again including two posts for Tahsil Kapoo. Pursuant to those notices, the appellant and respondents No. 5 and 6 applied for appointment as Notary 3 for Tahsil Kapoo. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that respondents No. 5 and 6 are registered voters and ordinarily reside in Tahsil Dharamjaigarh and are not resident in Tahsil Kapoo. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is a permanent resident of Tahsil Kapoo and is practising there. He states that on 08.05.2025 respondent No. 1 issued a call to the candidates who had applied for appointment as Notary to appear for an interview scheduled on 30.05.2025, and that the appellant and respondents No. 5 and 6 attended that interview. After the interview, by order dated 15.07.2025 (the impugned order), respondent No. 1 appointed respondents No. 5 and 6 as Notaries for Tahsil Kapoo. Counsel contends that those appointments are in violation of Rule 7(3)(a) of the Notary Rules, 1956, because respondents No. 5 and 6 are not ordinarily resident in Tahsil Kapoo. It is also submitted that the Sarpanches of 37 Gram Panchayats made complaints to the authority about the appointments, asserting non-residence of respondents No. 5 and 6, but no action has been taken on those complaints to date. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasizes that respondents No. 5 and 6 are residents of Tahsil Dharamjaigarh and that, as a result of their appointment as Public Notaries for Tahsil Kapoo, persons resident in Tahsil Kapoo would be compelled to travel to Tahsil Dharamjaigarh for notarial services. It is pointed out that Tahsil Kapoo comprises some sixty villages and was upgraded to a tahsil to facilitate convenience for the villagers. The appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6 as Public Notaries for Tahsil Kapoo, therefore, has caused resentment among the villagers, who have 4 repeatedly protested the impugned appointments. 6. It is further stated that the local representative, Madan Singh Rathiya, filed Writ Petition (PIL) No. 73 of 2025 challenging the appointments; by order dated 22.08.2025 the Court disposed of that petition while reserving liberty to affected persons to file appropriate writ petitions in their individual capacities. Pursuant thereto, the appellant filed WPC No. 4572/2025 before the learned Single Judge challenging the order dated 15.07.2025. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 28.08.2025, prompting this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that respondents No. 5 and 6 are registered voters and ordinarily reside in Tahsil Dharamjaigarh and not in Tahsil Kapoo, and therefore are ineligible under the Notary Rules, 1956, to be appointed as Notaries for Tahsil Kapoo. It is contended that the appellant, a resident and practitioner of Tahsil Kapoo who also applied for the post, was not considered for appointment and that respondents No. 5 and 6 were given preferential treatment by respondent No. 1; in short, the appointments are alleged to be arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the statutory scheme. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the order of the Single Judge and pointed out that this Court, in WA No. 590 of 2025 by order dated 11.08.2025, has already considered and decided the same question. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 5 10. 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 fide 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 finding himself unsuccessful, challenges the process, relief should not normally be granted in the absence of compelling proof of irregularity. 11. Applying that principle to the present case, the appellant has not pointed to any contemporaneous objection during the selection process, nor has he produced convincing material to show that the selection process was vitiated by mala fide, 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 Kapoo and therefore ineligible, without cogent documentary proof that they were, at the relevant time, disqualified under Rule 7(3)(a) of the Notary Rules, 1956, is insufficient to upset the selection. The burden to establish illegality or non-compliance with the statutory eligibility criteria lies on the challenger. Apart from the complaints by the sarpanches, no material has been placed on record which demonstrates that the authority ignored a clear statutory bar or 6 acted with mala fide. In the absence of such material, the appointments must be presumed to have been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 12. 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. 13. 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 fide, patent illegality or colourable exercise of power; and (iii) the matter is not distinguishable from the decision already rendered by this Court on 11.08.2025 — we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan