The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the renewal application of an Oath Commissioner, observing that the petition is devoid of merit.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on January 25 on a petition filed by an Oath Commissioner.
The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as an Oath Commissioner in 1997. Thereafter, consistently his application has been renewed from time to time. The last renewal that was granted, expired on December 2, 2021. Thereafter, applications were called for appointment of Oath Commissioners. Various persons applied for the same including the petitioner.
By the impugned order, the petitioner was intimated that his renewal application was not considered. However, the petitioner was asked to continue as an Oath Commissioner till the new appointment is made. Questioning the same, the petition is filed.
Yashovardhan Shukla, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the order passed by the respondents is erroneous. That no reasons have been assigned for not renewing Petitioner’s license. The Petitioner is competent to continue to act as an Oath Commissioner. Therefore, the petition be allowed by setting aside the said order , Counsel added.
The High Court observed that there was no right of renewal, which the petitioner could exercise. It is an option alone. Secondly, the petitioner has been an Oath Commissioner since 1997, namely for the last 24 years. It is too long a period. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to be a permanent Oath Commissioner.
“The contention that he is fit enough to act as an Oath Commissioner, is not the ground on which the renewal has not been considered. It is not only him, but various other persons are also fit enough to hold the post of the Oath Commissioner. Everyone should get an equal opportunity. Having been an Oath Commissioner for 24 years is a sufficiently long extended period. There are other learned counsels who also deserve to get an opportunity to work as an Oath Commissioner. The petitioner cannot claim this as a matter of right. Under these circumstances, we find no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed”, the order read.