JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.N. Misra, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification No. N838/VII-Nayaya-3-924(65)/1994LKO/August, 2004 issued by the respondent No. 1 appointing the respondent No. 4 Shri Raj Kumar Jaiswal as Public Notary for Padrauna, District Kushinagar. He has sought writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid notification. 2. We have heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. 3. It appears from the contents of the writ petition that Shri Badri Prasad, the father of the respondent No. 4 was working as Public Notary in Padrauna District Kushinagar, who died and in his place the respondent No. 4 applied to be appointed. His application was forwarded by the then District Judge, Kushinagar vide letter No. 384/XV dated 18-5-2004. The respondent No. 1 appointed the respondent No. 4 as Public Notary vide impugned notification referred to above. The petitioner has alleged that the prescribed procedure was not adopted and this was not a matter of succession by virtue of which the respondent No. 4 could be appointed as Public Notary in place of his deceased father. A list of 10 candidates was already pending with the Government since 2001 and without taking decision on that list, the solitary case of the respondent No. 4 was considered in the year 2004 and he was appointed. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents have alleged that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Public Notary by the Government after completing the procedure prescribed for it and there was no illegality in it. The list of 10 candidates as shown in para 3 of the writ petition was never received, therefore, no such list was presumed to be pending. The father of the respondent No. 4 was Public Notary and after his death, he applied for the post and after completing the formalities, the District Judge forwarded the application on which the Government took decision. 5. Admittedly, the post of Public Notary does not come within the category of Government Servant, therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has force that the respondent No. 4 could not be appointed in place of his deceased father as the compassionate appointment takes place in the case of Government Servants dying in harness. 5. Admittedly, the post of Public Notary does not come within the category of Government Servant, therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has force that the respondent No. 4 could not be appointed in place of his deceased father as the compassionate appointment takes place in the case of Government Servants dying in harness. This was also not a post, which could be filled by succession. This was unique case in which after death of father, the son applied for being appointed as Public Notary in place of his deceased father and was appointed as such. 6. The procedure has been prescribed for the appointment of Notary in Notaries Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). These rules have been framed by the Government by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Rule 4 of the said rules deals with the application for appointment of Notary and Rule 6 provides for scrutiny of such application by the competent authority. Rule 7 deals with the recommendation of the competent authority and Rule 8 deals with the appointment to be made by the Government. As regards the competent authority is concerned, the District Judges in the State of U.P. have been nominated as such vide Gazette notification dated 31-1-1957 which runs as under : 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited old book which contained Rule 6(2), which is quoted below : “If the competent authority does not reject the application under sub-rule(1),— (a) he shall publish in the official Gazette a notice of the application inviting objections, if any, to the appointment of the applicant as a notary, to be submitted within fourteen days of such publication; and (b) he may, if he thinks fit, ascertain from any Bar Council, Bar Association, Incorporated Law Society or other authority in the area where the applicant proposed to practise, the objections, if any, to the appointment of the applicant as a notary, to be submitted within the time fixed for the purpose.” 8. But it appears that the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not go through the amended Rule in which Rule 6 sub-rule 2(a) was omitted by GSR 370(E) dated 8-7-1997, thus the amended rule in the present form runs as under : “If the competent authority does not reject the application under sub-rule (1), (a) Omitted by G.S.R. 370(E) dated 8-7-1997 (b) he may, if he thinks fit, ascertain from any Bar Council, Bar Association, Incorporated Law Society or other authority in the area where the applicant proposes to practise; the objections, if any, to the appointment of the applicant as notary, to be submitted within the time fixed for the purpose.” 9. From the record, it appears that after obtaining the application from the respondent No. 4, the District Judge concerned did not give any opportunity to anyone to file objection, whereas Rule 6(2) (b) says that the objections, if any, which were to be submitted within the time fixed for the purpose had to be considered before making recommendation for appointment under Rule 7. Though sub-rule 11(a) of Rule 6 was deleted but in sub-rule (1) (b), the provision for inviting objections remained intact, therefore, the District Judge was bound to invite objections before making recommendation and in the present case it was not done. Thus, the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 was not followed by the learned District Judge. 10. Now, we come to the recommendation of the competent authority as provided under Rule 7. The letter No. 384/XV dated 18-5-2004 sent by the District Judge, Kushinagar to the Principal Secretary (Law)-cum-Legal Remembrancer, U.P. Government, Lucknow did not contain any recommendation for appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Notary. The aforesaid letter is quoted below : “From B.N. Shukla, H.J.S. District Judge Kushinagar at Padrauna. To, Sri A.B. Shukla, Principal Secretary Nayay & Legal Advisor, Nayay Anubhag-3 Appointment, Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow. No. 384/xv/Dated/Kushinagar at Padrauna, May 18, 2004 Subject: Application of Sri Raj Kumar Jaiswal Advocate for his appointment as Notary at Tehsil Padrauna, in vacant post. Sir, Sri Raj Kumar Jaiswal Advocate s/o Late Badri Prasad Vakil (the then Notary at Tahsil Padrauna) has submitted an application for his appointments on the vacant post of Notary Tahsil Padrauna, which is lying vacant after death of his father Sri Badri Prasad Vakil. Sir, Sri Raj Kumar Jaiswal Advocate s/o Late Badri Prasad Vakil (the then Notary at Tahsil Padrauna) has submitted an application for his appointments on the vacant post of Notary Tahsil Padrauna, which is lying vacant after death of his father Sri Badri Prasad Vakil. His request alongwith other enclosures is being forwarded to Government of Uttar Pradesh for kind consideration. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Encl. As above Kushinagar at Padrauna” (B.N. Shukla) District Judge, 11. The last part of the letter clearly shows that the District Judge had only forwarded the application of the respondent No. 4 alongwith the enclosures for kind consideration. This could not at all be considered a recommendation of the District Judge. 12. In the case of Suryakant Chandrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 2000 MP 260 , similar question arose for consideration in which the competent authority had forwarded the memorials of all applicants alongwith the documents for appropriate action. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that it could not be construed as recommendation of competent authority and appointment on the basis of the said letter was bad because it was suffering from procedural mistakes. 13. The Government cannot treat itself at par with any individual citizen of the State. The Government cannot discriminate and deviate from the public accountability. In para 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner had disclosed this fact that on 31-7-2001, the District Judge, Kushinagar had recommended the names of the 10 legal practitioners for appointment on the post of Public Notary. That list was pending and without taking any decision on that list the appointment in question was made in the year 2004. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State it has been alleged that no such list was pending with the Government. The petitioner has filed Annexure-RA-1, which shows that Shri Braham Singh, the then District Judge, Kushinagar had recommended the names of 10 legal practitioners in order of preference for appointment on the additional post of Notary vide letter No. 218/15: Kushinagar/dated/July 30, 2001. Mere denial in the counter-affidavit will not lead to the conclusion that no such recommendation was made by the then District Judge. What happened with the said list, has not been disclosed by the respondents? Mere denial in the counter-affidavit will not lead to the conclusion that no such recommendation was made by the then District Judge. What happened with the said list, has not been disclosed by the respondents? Naturally, it was not in the fitness of the things that leaving aside the list already pending, the appointment was made on the fresh application. This was not proper and the interest of the petitioner was adversely affected because in the earlier list his name had also been recommended. 14. In view of our above discussions, we come to the conclusion that appointment of the respondent No. 4 on the post of Public Notary in Padrauna District Kushinagar was not in accordance with the Rules and procedure prescribed by the Government and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification No. N 838/VII-Nayaya-3-924(65)/1994 LKO/August, 2004 issued by the respondent No. 1 appointing the respondent No. 4 as Public Notary in Padrauna District Kushinagar is hereby quashed with prospective effect. The respondents are directed to take necessary steps to fill the vacant post of Notary by inviting fresh applications and the post be filled within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. 16. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost. ————