K.N. Singh, J.
1. The petitioner is a Notary for the district of Muzaffar-nagar appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952. On 14th October, 1970, the State Government issued a circular order directing the District Judges of the State to make recommendations for the appointment of additional Notaries. The Government order stated that the Government was satisfied that the average income of a Notary should not be less than Rs. 300/- per month and on this principle wherever necesarv more notaries should be appointed. The order further directed the District Judge to examine the question on the principles enunciated in the order and if necessary to recommend for the appointment of additional hands as Notaries. The District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, on scrutiny found that the average monthly income of the two Notaries working in the district of Muzaffarnagar was Rs. 1300/-per month, he thereupon invited applications for the appointment of Notaries. The petitioner and certain other persons thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legal validity of the principles laid down in the order of the State Government and the proceedings taken for appointment of additional Notaries. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petitions. The petitioner and other affected persons took up the matter in special appeal. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18th April, 1972 dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The District Judge thereupon published the applications in accordance with the rules and invited objections. The petitioner filed objection and made a prayer for the inspection of the memorial made by the applicants. The District Judge did not permit the inspection. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge inviting applications for the appointment of two more Notaries in the district of Muzaffarnagar and also to quash the order dated 17th March, 1972, making recommendation to the State Government for the appointment of two more Notaries. During the pendency of the writ petition the State Government on the recommendations of the District Judge appointed Sarvasri Vedpal Singh Lotiyan, Hari Mohan Mittal and Zamir Uddin Advocates as Notaries for the district of Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner then got the petition amended challenging the appointment of the aforesaid persons as Notaries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue a general circular directing the District Judge to appoint more Notaries as there was no necessity for the same. He further contended that the competent authority was the District Judge who should have taken initiative in the matter, and the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the District Judges. Certain other ancillary arguments have been raised to impugn the order of the State Government, These very questions were raised by the petitioner and repelled by a Division Bench of this Court. The Bench observed :--
'The State Government is the appointing authority. Under Rules 7 and 8 the State Government has to take a decision as to the number of Notaries that may be appointed for any specific area. The State Government can hence validly indicate its policy in the matter of fixation of the number of notaries for each district. It can equally validly indicate the principles which it will take into consideration in determining the commercial importance of an area. The impugned circular cannot be treated as without the authority of law or as an arbitrary exercise of power.'
The Bench further repelled the contention that the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue instructions to the competent authority in the matter of making recommendations for appointment as notaries and in coming to that conclusion it referred to Rule 8. The Bench further held that the function of the competent authority, namely, the District Judge was more akin to a fact-finding body with power to make recommendations rather than of taking decisions after applying its own mind. We respectfully agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the petitioner's contention challenging the validity of the circular letter of the Government must be rejected.
4. Learned counsel urged that in the district of Muzaffarnagar there was no necessity for appointment of any additional notary as it is a small district and no inconvenience was caused to the public. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been asserted that Muzaffarnagar town is one of the rich districts of Uttar Pradesh and has a number of industrial and commercial undertakings and it is a developing district. It has further been asserted that with the growth of industries and commerce the number of affidavits to be attested by public notaries is likely to go up considerably. It has been further asserted that even after the appointment of three more notaries the income of the petitioner would not be less than Rs. 300/-per month. On the face of these averments the petitioner's contention cannot be upheld. It is a matter of common knowledge that with the growth of industries and commercial undertakings a number of documents and instruments are required to be verified by the Notaries as required by the Notaries Act, 1952. If there are more than two Notaries available to the public in the district of Muzaffarnagar obviously the public convenience would be advanced. None of the petitioner's legal rights are affected by the appointment of additional notaries.
5. The petitioner's contention that he was entitled to inspect the memorial filed under Rule 6 of the rules framed under the Notaries Act, 1952, and he was wrongly refused inspection cannot be accepted. In his application for the inspection of the memorial the petitioner had himself stated that there was no provision under the Act or the rules for inspection of Memorials. The purpose for inviting objection is to give an opportunity to the members of the public to raise objection against the appointment of any undesirable person. The petitioner was given opportunity of filing objection. He appeared personally before the District Judge and advanced his oral arguments against the candidates. In these circumstances, the petitioner had availed opportunity of objection as contemplated by the rules. The petitioner was not entitled to inspect the memorials, namely, the applications made by the applicants who were candidates for appointment as notaries.
6. Lastly, the learned counsel urged that he had a Vested right to earn a certain amount of income as notary and that right was adversely affected on account of the appointment of three additional notaries. We fail to appreciate this contention. Under the Notaries Act, 1952, and the rules framed thereunder a person is permitted to function as notary and to discharge the duties entrusted to him under the Act and the Rules and for that purpose he is entitled to charge certain amount of fee prescribed thereunder. The appointment of a notary is renewed from year to year. There can be no vested right in a notary to earn a fixed amount of income. The Act or the Rules do not confer any right to any assured minimum income or guarantee any fixed income. The appointment of three other notaries does not affect any of the petitioner's rights.
7. The petitioner has failed to establish that the appointment of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has been made in contravention of any statutory provisions of the Act or Rules and that any substantial injury has been caused to the petitioner by their appointments. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relied under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs payable to the State as well as to respondents 3, 4 and 5.