R. N. Misra, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification No. N-838/VII-Nayaya-3-924 (65)/1994-LKO/August, 2004 issued by the respondent No. 1 appointing the respondent No. 4 Shri Raj Kumar Jaiswal as Public Notary for Padrauna, district Kushinagar. He has sought writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid notification.
(2.) WE have heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. It appears from the contents of the writ petition that Shri Badri Prasad, the father of the respondent No. 4 was working as public notary in Padrauna, district Kushinagar, who died and in his place the respondent No. 4 applied to be appointed. His application was forwarded by the then District Judge, Kushinagar vide letter No. 384/XV dated 18.5.2004. The respondent No. 1 appointed the respondent No. 4 as Public Notary vide impugned notification referred to above. The petitioner has alleged that the prescribed procedure was not adopted and this was not a matter of succession by virtue of which the respondent No. 4 could be appointed as public notary in place of his deceased father. A list of 10 candidates was already pending with the Government since 2001 and without taking decision on that list, the solitary case of the respondent No. 4 was considered in the year 2004 and he was appointed. The learned counsel for the respondents have alleged that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Public Notary by the Government after completing the procedure prescribed for it and there was no illegality in it. The list of 10 candidates as shown in para 3 of the writ petition was never received, therefore, no such list was presumed to be pending. The father of the respondent No. 4 was Public Notary and after his death, he applied for the post and after completing the formalities, the District Judge forwarded the application on which the Government took decision.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the post of Public Notary does not come within the category of Government servant, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force that the respondent No. 4 could not be appointed in place of his deceased father as the compassionate appointment takes place in the case of Government servants dying in harness. This was also not a post, which could be filled by succession. This was unique case in which after death of father, the son applied for being appointed as Public Notary in place of his deceased father and was appointed as such. The procedure has been prescribed for the appointment of Notary in Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). These rules have been framed by the Government by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with the application for appointment of Notary and Rule 6 provides for scrutiny of such application by the competent authority. Rule 7 deal with the recommendation of the competent authority and Rule 8 deals with the appointment to be made by the Government. As regards the competent authority is concerned, the District Judges in the State of U. P. have been nominated as such vide Gazette notification dated 31.1.1957 which runs as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...;