Top-Scoring Advocate’s Notary Recommendation Must Be Reconsidered After State Gave No Reasons For Dropping Her: Karnataka HC

The State invited applications in March 2022 for a newly created Notary post in Ajjampura Revenue Taluk.

After interviewing the applicants on 17 March 2023, the Interview Board awarded the petitioner the highest score and recommended her for appointment.

The recommendation was approved by the then Law Minister, but the State later decided to restart the selection process and issued a communication dated 13 February 2024 rejecting the applications, followed by a fresh notification dated 14 March 2024.

The State relied on complaints alleging misconduct and misbehaviour; the petitioner challenged the communication and notification under Article 226.

During the proceedings, the Court examined the original records and noted that the complaints concerned private family-property disputes and that the petitioner had been acquitted in the related criminal cases.

Rule 8(1) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 empowers the appropriate Government, after receiving the Interview Board’s recommendation, to allow or reject an application.

The Court held that when the Government exercises its power to reject an application or recommendation, it must assign valid reasons; those reasons cannot be arbitrary or whimsical and must satisfy the test of reasonableness.

The Court also referred to M.T.P. Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 765, and P.C. Najeeb v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 10523, in support of the requirement that rejection of an Interview Board recommendation not be arbitrary or casual.

The petitioner had obtained the highest interview score, and the Interview Board had recommended her for appointment.

The original records disclosed no reasons for terminating that selection process; the complaints appeared only later, after officials had noted that reasons would be needed to justify restarting the process.

The Court found that the complaints related to private family-property disputes, not the petitioner’s professional conduct, and that she had been acquitted in the associated criminal cases.

In these circumstances, the State’s decision to cancel the process and issue a fresh notification was unsupported by adequate reasons and failed the reasonableness standard under Rule 8.

It directed the State to reconsider the Interview Board’s recommendation within four weeks.

The State remained free to fill the additionally created Notary post for Ajjampura Taluk expeditiously.