LEELADHAR PRASAD CHANDRAKAR Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Notary at Civil Court, Raipur and further seeks quashing of the appointment of the respondent No. 3 on the said post vide notings dated 08.09.2010 and dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P/5).

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the respondent No.1 published a notification in the year 2008 inviting applications for the purpose of appointment on the post of Notaries in the territorial jurisdiction of the Raipur Civil Court. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner, alongwith other Advocates, submitted their applications through the District & Sessions Judge, Raipur (the respondent No. 2). THE respondent No. 2, vide the memo dated 01.09.2009 informed the petitioner that his name was approved for consideration for appointment on the post of Notary, and thus, directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- through Challan and submit a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/- so that requisite papers could be forwarded to the respondent No.1 for further proceeding. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the challan of Rs. 1000/- and non-judicial stamp of Rs. 500/-. THEreafter, when the petitioner did not receive any appointment order, he approached the respondent No. 1 and 2. Again, on 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 1 requesting to issue the licence of Notary. THE respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner through the respondent No. 2 that his documents, challan and non-judicial stamp were being returned, vide memo dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P/4). THE petitioner applied for the certified copy of the entire note sheet in respect to appointment process of the Notary under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein he came to know that in place of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 was appointed vide notings dated 08.09.2010 and to that effect was also stated in the notings on 29.09.2010 of the government file (Annexure P/5), which are impugned herein.

(3.) THE respondent No. 3 was represented through Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate. He would admit that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Notary subsequently. However, the respondent No. 3 had chosen not to file any response by way of return or counter affidavit.