RAVINDER SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the action of the Government in appointing respondent No.4 as a Notary illegal? This is the short question that arises in the present case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner is an advocate. He had applied for appointment as a Notary. Vide letter dated October 8, 1998, he was duly recommended for appointment by the Deputy Commissioner for one of the two available vacancies. Vide order dated January 20, 2000, the State Government had appointed Mr. Avtar Singh Dhanoa against one of the two vacancies. For the second vacancy, the Government had asked the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter. It was also observed that the name of Ujaggar Singh who had submitted the application may also be considered. A copy of this letter is at Annexure-P-9 with the writ petition. On receipt of this letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar had reiterated his recommendation for the appointment of the petitioner. However, the Government had vide its order dated May 24, 2000, directed that Mrs. Harpal Kaur be appointed. A copy of the order is at Annexure-P-11. Aggrieved by the direction of the Government, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the appointment of respondent No.4 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Notaries Rules, 1956. He prays that the order dated May 24, 2000, a copy of which is at Annexure-P-11, be quashed and that the respondents be directed to appoint him as a Notary at Sub-Division Kharar as a 'reserved' candidate belonging to the category of Scheduled Castes.