1 2025:CGHC:23126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3077 of 2022 1 - Rajeshwar Prasad Bhawe S/o Siyaram Bhawe Aged About 43 Years R/o Mission Compound, Mauhadih, Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District And Session Judge Through Administrative Office, District And Session Judge, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Devi Prasad Jai Aged About 51 Years R/o Kurda, Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri H.V.Sharma, Advocate For Respondent//State : Shri Satish Gupta, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/06/2025 Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.13 12:35:21 +0530 2 India is to the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure-P/1) and 10.01.2022 (Annexure-P/2) whereby the respondent No.1 has appointed the respondent No.3 as Notary vide order dated 31.05.2022/01.06.2022 for the area Bamhanidih contrary to the requirement in the notification and rejected the review petition made by the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the District Judge, Janjgir- Champa had issued a notification dated 21.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) for appointment of Notary on the vacant post in Tahsil and Up Tahsil of the district in a required format of application within 15 days. As per requirement, the applications were submitted and the petitioner has also submitted his application and 13 candidates were selected for the interview vide letter dated 9.11.2021 (Annexure -P/5). The respondent No.3 was selected for the post of Notary in Tahsil Bamhanidih vide notification dated 10.01.2022. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 is a resident of village Kurda, Tahsil Champa and is practicing at Champa, therefore he ought not have been appointed as Notary as per provision under Rule 7 (3)(a) of the Notary Rules, 1956. Hence the present petition. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of respondent No.3 in the professional area of Tahsil Bamhanidih is contrary to the notification as required eligibility criteria. He submit that the respondents No.1 & 2 have failed to invite the objection prior to his appointment. He further submits that the respondent No.1 has declined to consider the review petition and the place where the respondent No.3 resides. As per Rule 7(3) of the Notary Rules 1956 which reads as under: 3 “In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely:- (a) whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary;” 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 submits that the present petition is not maintainable and the petitioner who himself has participated in the selection process and after selection of the candidate, he has preferred this petition. He submits that the petitioner was well aware of the entire selection process but had not raised any objection during the selection procedure and when the list was finalized, the present petition has been preferred at a belated stage and as such, the petition is not maintainable. He submits that subsequently when the competent authority received some objections and representations from different bar associations who have applied for different areas the said objections/representations were duly considered by the competent authority as prescribed under Rule 7(3) and after scrutiny of the applications have made recommendation and thereafter, final list was published for interview where the name of respondent No.3 was mentioned but the petitioner did not raise any objection. He submits that the respondent No.3 secured highest marks among the candidates and has been selected as prescribed under the Rules, 1956 and therefore there is no illegality in the selection procedure. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Other reported in (2007)8 SCC 644. 5. I have carefully gone through the documents annexed and on perusal, it reveals that the respondent No.3 has been selected after due 4 scrutiny and as per the law prescribed under the Rules, 1956 which has been complied with. 6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the Board after duly examining the work experience, legal knowledge, area of practice and the professional accumen of the candidate, has recommended the respondent No.3 who had secured hightest marks for being selected and order of appointment has been issued. Under the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the selection procedure and do not suffer from any illegality calling for the interference of this Court. 7. The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge