The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of notaries must strictly adhere to the Notaries Rules, 1956, and any deviation from the rules without justifiable reason is impermissible.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Mehare, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally 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 certificate 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 Notification 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 notification, it was specifically 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 officer 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.

4. The petitioner is the only candidate who has complied with the notification inviting the application and sent his application through the Principal District Judge, Latur. The appointment of respondent no.3 is against the Notary Rules. He got the information under the Right to Information Act from the Office of District Court, Latur, that except him and Keshav Narayan Kardile, nobody has submitted the application for a notary public to his Office. The respondents have invited the other candidates who have not applied for notary as per rules and interviewed them. Knowing about the illegal appointment of respondent no.3, he complained under Rule 8 sub-rule 3 of Notaries Rules, 1956 with respondent no.2. Upon hearing, his complaint was rejected directing him to file a review application. Accordingly, on 15.10.2019, he fled a review application with the competent authority. Upon hearing him on the said application, his review application is rejected by the impugned order.

5. The petitioner submits that the State Government has appointed a person as a public notary for Taluka Chakur, who has secured less marks than him and had not applied through proper channels, i.e., Principal District Judge. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and in breach of the notary rules. He is the only eligible candidate for appointing as a notary public for Taluka Chakur. Therefore, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside, and respondent no.1 be directed to appoint him as a notary public.

6. Respondent nos.1 and 2 by their affidavit in reply have come with a case that the applications were invited as pointed out by the applicant. In all, 10 applications were received for Chakur Taluka. The committee has scrutinized the applications. The committee found all 10 candidates suitable. Hence, interviews were conducted on 24.11.2017. The interview board has recommended the names of all those 10 candidates to the Government as per Rule 7-A of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The Government approved the name of respondent no.3 and accordingly appointed him. The allegations leveled by the petitioner are in general and hence were denied. The Principal District Judge, Latur, had not recommended, but only forwarded the applicati