PANAH MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the selection and appointments of respondent nos. 3 to 5 as notaries in District Tikamgarh vide order dated 9. 9. 1998, Annexure P5, passed by respondent no. l.

(2.) THE facts are these. On the death of Notary Shankar Prasad Sinha in District tikamgarh his post fell vacant. The President and Members of District Bar Association, tikamgarh, therefore, made a representation dated 21. 5. 1997, Annexure PI, to respondent no. 2 for the appointment of notary. Respondent no. 2 responded by issuing a notification inviting applications from persons interested for appointment as notary. As many as 11 applications including that of petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 5 were received. Respondent no. 2 published the list of names of all 11 applicants in the Gazette notification dated 15. 5. 1998, Annexure P3, for inviting objections but no objections were received against any of the applicants. Respondent no. 2 thereafter sent his report dated 6. 7. 1998 to respondent no. l wherein he recommended the names of three applicants, viz. Subhash Chandra Jain, Vinod Pastor (respondent no. 3) and Smt. Prabha Gupta (respondent no. 4) and stated that amongst these three any one may be appointed. In the meantime, three more posts of notary were created by the State government in Tikamgarh district. Respondent no. l, after examining the report of respondent no. 2 as well as the applications of all the applicants appointed respondent nos. 3 to5 as notaries by the impugned order dated9. 9. 1998, Annexure P5. Respondent no. 1 had also found that the application of petitioner was not complete as it was not countersigned by a manager of a nationalised bank.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner has argued that, while selecting and appointing respondent nos. 3 to 5 as notaries, the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the notaries Rules 1956 have not been complied with and, therefore, their appointments were liable to be quashed. He also submitted that although the report of respondent no. 2 was sent for the appointment of only one applicant, respondent no. 1 committed an illegality in appointing three applicants. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the appointments were made by following the due procedure. He also produced the original record pursuant to the order of this court and argued that, since the application of petitioner was incomplete he could not have been appointed as notary in any case and, therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the appointments of respondent nos. 3 to 5. According to the learned Government Advocate, respondent no. 1 was folly empowered and justified in appointing respondent nos. 3 to 5 as three new posts of notary were created the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 to 5 have adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate.