.&1^.&^.. ^••^^^ flMRlE SlNP'" ^i^^^.^ ^^-•:-- ^^>F""; ^e^r .^'^ ^""" C^ /^r^7 /-- © RESPONDENTS INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition JC1 No. 73^/2009 PETITIONER :- ^ Bhuwaneshwar Mishra s/o Shri Deenbandhu Mishra, Advocate, aged about 47 years, R/o Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). VERSUS ^l. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Law Departraent D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Collector, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ,3. C.F.C. (clerk of the court),office of District & Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.). .4. Krishna Kumar Singh s/o Shri Rarridayal Singh, aged about 47 years, Advocate, Civil Court, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA >: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.7354 OF 2009 PETITIONER Bhuwaneshwar Mishra V~K RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri,J. Present:- Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriA.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri S.K. Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 21st day ofJune,2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the proceedings dated 5-10-2008 whereby the respondent No.4 has been recommended for appointment on the post of Notary, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur. 2. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the name of the petitioner was at S.No.1 in the list submitted by the District Judge, Jashpur, for consideration and appointment on one post of Notary. The petitioner being at S.No.1 has to be considered and appointed first. If the petitioner declines to accept the post of Notary in that event only other names should be considered. Shri Patel further submits that before rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, there should be a proper notice to the petitioner to put forward his case. 3. On the other hand, Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State, submits that the list was not prepared on the basis of any selection or merit. Under the provisions of law the District Judge of the concerned district has to forward a list of ^'^s^^^ /(" l 6. 8. candidates to the State Government for appointment as Notary and in that list persons depending on the number of vacancies, may be selected and appointed. The petitioner does not acquire any right on the basis that his name was at S.No.1, though the list was not prepared on the basis of any test or merit. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to show cause notice before cancellation of his nomination is unsustainable, as there was no objection to his application. In case there was any objection, the petitioner is entitled to opport:unity of hearing against the said objection. On the recommendation of the Principal Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, the concerned Minister had selected the respondent No.4 for appointment on the post of Notary, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, as there was onty one vacancy available. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General, further submits that the petitioner has not challenged any order, but the proceedings, which is neither binding nor effective till it is converted to a proper order. Shri Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, adopts the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the State. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. There is no challenge to any order whereby the respondent No.4 has been appointed as Notary. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings, which is neither binding nor effective till it is converted to a proper order. Thus, challenge to the proceedings is not at all maintainable. ,,^^' .i-f^^ '< ^. v'y. '^ -,;...;J"J ,-r" 9. The other contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is without any basis, as there is no scheme for affording an opportunity of hearing to all the applicants. The petitioner is mere applicant for one post of Notary. By making an application a candidate does not acquire any right to the post. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor made any submission with regard to mala f/'de or extraneous consideration in appointment of the respondent No.4. Thus, the consideration seems to be just, proper and in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge