W.Broome, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint the petitioner to the U. P. Civil (Judicial) Service. He appeared at the competitive examination that was held in August, 1958, for recruitment to this service and was then interviewed by the U. P. Public Service Commission; and as a result he was placed fifth in order of merit when the results were declared. Nevertheless the petitioner was not called to appear for the medical test, and he found that a number of persons who had been placed below him in the declared examination result, were being appointed as Munsifs after passing the medical test. Thereafter he sought interviews with the Minister of Justice and the Chief Minister of the State and claims that he was informed by them that the Government was not prepared to appoint him as a Munsif because of his connections with the Rash-triya Swayam Sewak Sangh and the Jan Singh. Admittedly he was convicted in 1949, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment for offering Satyagraha in connection with the ban on the R. S. S., and again in 1953 he was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment for breach of an order directing him to leave Deihi in connection with the Satyagraha carried on for the "Save Kashmir Movement"; but his contention is that these activities on his part in no way disqualify him for appointment to the post of Munsif. He made a representation to the Government for reconsideration of his case but was informed by a letter dated 17-10-1959, that the representation had been rejected. He maintains that the refusal on the part of the Government to appoint him as a Munsif constitutes a breach of the guarantees incorporated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and therefore asks for a writ of mandamus in his favour.
(2.) The State in reply has taken up a some-what equivocal attitude. It is denied that the non-selection of the petitioner was based on his political views, affiliations or activities; but there is no clear denial of the specific allegations put forward by the petitioner to the effect that the Minister of Justice and the Chief Minister had told him that this was why he had been disqualified. The stand taken by the State seems to be that all kinds of factors were taken into account when deciding whether the petitioner should be selected or not, but that this material cannot be disclosed as "in the interest of the candidates themselves it has to be kept confidential."
(3.) The recruitment of Munsifs is regulated by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, framed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, These rules provide that recruitment shall be made on a result of a competitive examination conducted by the U. P. Public Service Commission and prescribe certain qualifications of nationality, domicile, age, academic attainments etc., which must be possessed by a candidate before he can be accepted. The qualification with which we are concerned in the case of the petitioner is that of good character, the relevant rule about which runs as follows : " 14. CHARACTER -- The character of a candidate must be such as to fit him, in the opinion of the Governor, for the service. He must produce certificates of good character from Principal of the College in which he was last educated, and from two responsible persons of status (not relations) who are well acquainted with him in private life, and are unconnected with his University, College or School Me." When the candidates have appeared for the competitive examination, the Public Service Commission prepares a list "in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded"; and then appointment is made by the Governor in accordance with Rule 21, which runs : "21 (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 20 (which provides for the passing of a physical fitness test) the Governor shall on receipt of the list prepared by the Commission consult the High Court and shall, after taking into consideration the views of the High Court, select candidates for appointment from amongst those who stand highest in order of merit in such list, provided that he is satisfied that they are duly qualified in other respects." The discretion exercisable by the Governor in such matters is further elucidated in Rule 32, which runs as follows: "32 (1). Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal, in consultation with the Court, with the case of any person governed by these rules in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equit-able; Provided that, where any of the foregoing rules is applicable to the case of any person, the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable to him than that provided by that rule. (2) When in his opinion it appears necessary to do so the Governor may make any appointment to the service in relaxation of these rules and in case of any appointment which is not in strict accordance with the rules the Governor shall be deemed to have made the appointment in relaxation of the rules".;