DEELIP SURYABHAN PESTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The advocate/petitioner approached this Court for seeking directions to set aside the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Superintendent (Law), Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya Mumbai, in Review Application No.907-2019/Notary/E as well as direction to respondent no.1 to issue a certifcate of appointment of a notary public in his favour.

(3.) The petitioner supports the issues raised in this petition by contending that since 2001 he has been practicing law at Chakur and Latur District Court. The Government of Maharashtra had issued a Gazette Notifcation dated 18.05.2016 bearing No.251 of 2016 inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment of the notary public at Chakur, Udgir, Ausa, and Shirur-Anantpal for one post each. In the said notifcation, it was specifcally mentioned that the application should be submitted as per Notary Rules, 1956 particularly, Rule 3 and 4 in Form-2 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The petitioner has submitted his application through District Judge/ Presiding Ofcer Latur on 15.06.2016. The learned Principal District Judge, Latur issued a recommendation order on 16.06.2016 in his favour. The respondent called him for an interview vide communication dated 14.11.2017 along with other similarly situated candidates on 24.11.2017. He faced the interview and secured 25 marks. However, the selection board has recommended the name of a suitable candidate to the Government. He was not intimated the order of the decision on the recommendations made by the board. He learnt that respondent no.4, who has secured only 21 marks, has been appointed as a notary public for Chakur Taluka.