Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Shekhar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 7 March, 2017
Chandra Shekhar Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 1 W.P.3858/2016
07.03.2017
Shri Anand Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent No. 1/State.
Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
None for respondents No. 4 to 7 even though served.
Heard on the question of admission.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 25/05/2016 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, whereby, five candidates were called for interview for appointment on the post of Notary in Tehsil Lahar, Dist. Bhind. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs :-
"a) Allow the present petition ; and
b) Memo Annexure P/1 may kindly be set aside; and
c) Respondent No. 1 & 2 be directed to proceed in the matter as per the Notary Rules, 1956 ; and / or
d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed."
Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner along with 21 other candidates have submitted forms for appointment to the post of Notary at Tehsil Lahar, Dist. Bhind. The list of the candidates Annexure P/4 was displayed on the notice board. Subsequently, on 25/05/2016, the District and Sessions Judge, Dist. Bhind issued the list of five persons who were called for interview from Tehsil Lahar, Dist. Bhind in which the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner along with other Chandra Shekhar Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2 W.P.3858/2016 persons filed objections before the Principal Registrar of High Court of M.P., Bench at Gwalior vide Annexure P/5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 did not conduct any enquiry and without following the procedure laid down sent names of only five persons, whereby, right of the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Notary has been taken away.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has filed short reply in which it has been categorically stated that name of the petitioner was not forwarded by the concerned Bar Association to the District and Sessions Judge, Dist. Bhind, therefore, name of the petitioner was not considered. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.
From bare perusal of the order dated 16/06/2016 passed in this writ petition, the petitioner had undertaken to delete the name of respondent No. 2 i.e. competent authority / District and Sessions Judge, Dist. Bhind during the course of the day. Accordingly, petitioner has deleted the name of respondent No. 2/ District and Sessions Judge, Dist. Bhind from the cause title of this petition.
In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 25/05/2016 (Annexure P/1) which has been issued by District and Sessions Judge, Dist. Bhind. It has been further prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be directed to proceed in the matter as per Notaries Rules, 1956. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2/ District and Sessions Judge, Dist. Chandra Shekhar Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 3 W.P.3858/2016 Bhind has been deleted by the petitioner from the cause title of this petition. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
As a consequence, this petition sans merit, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar*