Praveen Kumar Parhi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2969 of 2018

1. Praveen Kumar Parhi S/o Artat Ram Parhi Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat Saraipali, DistrictMahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Law Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Additional Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Law Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. District And Sessions Judge Mahasamund DistrictMahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

4. Additional District And Sessions Judge Saraipali, DistrictMahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Adv. General Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

29/10/2018 1.

The Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, issued a communication to the District & Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, on 1-10-2018 intimating that about 40 candidates are to be interviewed on 4-10-2018 for appointment of four Notaries for Mahasamund District.

2.

Judicial notice can be taken note of the fact that 2nd October, 2018 being the Gandhi Jayanti is a National Holiday, therefore, submission made by the petitioner's counsel that 3rd October, 2018 was the only working day after issuance of communication Annexure - P/1 is absolutely correct and it cannot be expected of a person to make preparation for interview within notice of 24 hours.

3.

It may happen, like the petitioner would contend, that a candidate is not available in the Bar Room due to eventualities on which he has no control and it is always expected of the authorities to allow sufficient time to the candidates for preparation for interview.

4.

At this juncture, it is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appointments to the said post of Notaries have not yet been made.

5.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to fix another date for holding interview for the petitioner for which information should be sent to the petitioner at least one week before the date of interview.

6.

It is made clear that if any other candidate out of the list of 40 candidates have also failed to participate they may again be intimated about the date of interview on which date the petitioner will be interviewed.

Sd/- Judge Gowri Prashant Kumar Mishra