Appointments must adhere to procedural rules, including candidate residency considerations and necessary inquiries; failure to comply renders appointments invalid.

ORDER

1. WA No.1542/2022 & WA No.1515/2022 have been filed under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by appellant/respondent No.3 & 4 respectively challenging the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Writ Court, whereby the Writ Petition No.20356/2018 filed by the respondent/petitioner-Sandeep Kumar Garg has been allowed.

2. As these appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Facts of the case in short are as under :--

(i) Appellant/respondent No.3&4 & respondent/petitioner Sandeep Kumar Garg are practising advocates and residents of Tehsil - Badarwas, District Shivpuri (M.P.). District and Sessions Judge, Shivpuri issued an advertisement inviting applications from local lawyers for appointment on 2 posts of Notaries lying vacant in Tehsil Badarwas of District Shivpuri (M.P.). Apart from others, appellants/respondent Nos.3 & 4 & respondent/petitioner Sandeep Kumar Garg submitted their applications for Notaries in Badarwas, District Shivpuri (M.P.). After scrutinizing all the applications, the District Judge forwarded the names of the advocates with the report of the Superintendent of Police, vide letter dated 27.10.2017. Vide order 21.8.2018, the appellant/respondent Nos.3&4 was appointed as Notary by the respondent/State. Hence, the writ petitioner-Sandeep Kumar Garg filed the Writ Petition challenging their appointment inter alia on the grounds firstly that appellant/respondent No.3 & 4 are not the residents of Tehsil Badarwas, District Shivpuri (M.P.), secondly, the (3) W.A.No.1542/2022 & WA No.1515/2022 District and Sessions Judge, Shivpuri did not make any recommendation of the name of any of the candidates for appointment and thirdly, the procedure prescribed under Rules 7 & 8 of the NOTARIES RULES , 1956 (for brevity, 'the 1956 Rules') has not been followed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(ii) After notice, respondent No.2 therein i.e. the Competent Authority/District & Sessions Judge, Shivpuri filed the reply by submitting that 15 new posts of Notaries in District Shivpuri were sanctioned by the State of M.P. vide order dated 29.11.2016 and a letter was sent with a request to send the panel of eligible advocates along with police verification report with recommendations of District and Sessions Judge. Vide memorandum dated 15.12.2016 respondent No.2 advertised 15 new posts for the Bar Association of district headquarters at Shivpuri and Tehsils Pichhore, Kolaras, Karera, Pohari & Khaniyadana. The advertisement was confined to the advocates practice within the District Shivpuri. All the applications were sent to S.P. District Shivpuri for character verification. After completing the requisite procedure prescribed under Rules 6 & 7 of the 1956 Rules, vide letter dated 27.10.2017 respondent No.2 forwarded its recommendations. It is further submitted that holding an enquiry by the District and Sessions Judge as contemplated under rule 7(1) of the 1956 Rules is only discretionary and not mandatory. It is further submitted that since the District and Sessions Judge did not receive any objection from any of the candidates against any other candidate; therefore, there was no reason to conduct an enquiry. Hence, no interference is called for.

(iii) Respondent No.1/State also filed the return by submitting that recommendations sent by respondent No.2/Competent authority were duly considered in all respects and proposed the names to the Minister of the Law and Legislative Affairs Department and thereafter, the appointment orders were issued. Respondent No.4-Manish Darbari also filed the r