Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) THE petitioner was an Advocate practising at the district courts of Budaun. He appeared at the Examination held for selection to the U. P. Judicial Officers' Service (which is distinct from the sister services known as U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch)). He was successful at the Examination. He was selected and was posted on 16th January, 1967 as Judicial Officer at Jaunpur. By an order dated 5th May, 1974, his temporary services were terminated on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. THE petitioner alleges that he challenged the order of termination by way of a writ petition which was, however, dismissed.
(2.) IN response to an advertisement issued for holding the recruitment to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service in 1980, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form. By a letter of October, 1980, the Registrar of the High Court intimated the petitioner that his application for recruitment to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Examination, 1980 has been provisionally accepted for admission to the written test which will be held on 20th and 21st December, 1980. The petitioner was required to deposit examination fee of Rs. 50/-. IN response, he deposited a bank draft dated 6th November 1980 for Rs. 50/- towards the examination fee. It appears that subsequently the matter was examined by the Selection Committee constituted to hold the Higher Judicial Service Examination, 1980. The Selection Committee rejected the petitioner's application. In consequence, the Registrar issued to the petitioner a letter dated 2nd December, 1980. It stated :- "In supersession of Court's letter dated 31-10-80 sent to you through District Judge Budaun, asking you to send a bank draft for Rs. 50/- towards the examination fee of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Examination, 1980, I am directed to say that in your application you had suppressed the fact that your services as a Judicial Officer were terminated on ground of unsuitability and you made it appear that you had yourself left the said services. It has now been found that you did not leave the service yourself but the same were terminated on the ground of unsuitability. In the circumstance your application has been rejected and the letter issued to you provisionally accepting your application for admission to the examination aforesaid is withdrawn. A bank draft for Rs. 50/- is being sent herewith to the District Judge, Budaun for being delivered to you by him.'' In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the reaction of his application for sitting at the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Examination 1980.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Selection Committee had no power to reject an application on ground of unsuitability. His second submission was that the Selection Committee has no power to review its decision to accept the petitioner's application and the Selection Committee was barred from so reviewing by the principle of equitable estoppel. It appears that the Selection Committee got various applications, received by it for the 1980 Examination, checked up by the office of the Court whereafter a letter, provisionally accepting the application, was issued to those persons whose applications were found to be in order. Subsequently, a rechecking was made and at such re-checking it transpired that the petitioner had in the relevant column of the application, not indicated that his services have been, by an order, terminated. In the relevant column in Para 17 of the application headed as "Date of leaving," he has mentioned the date as 5-5-1974 without indicating that he did not leave of his own accord but was made to leave by an order of termination of service. The last column of Para 17 of the application form is headed : "Proof furnished (Annexure No.)". In this column, the petitioner mentioned Annexure No. XXX. Here also he did not indicate that the proof was in relation to the date of leaving. Annexure No. XXX was a copy of the order of termination. That copy clearly indicated that the petitioner's service had been terminated. Since the petitioner did not specify in the application form, in Para 17 thereof, or anywhere else, that his services had been terminated, it appears that the Selection Committee took the view that there has been suppression of facts. The various particulars mentioned in the application gave the impression as if the petitioner had himself left Government service.;