ORDER
Doddakale Gowda, J.
1. Twin prayers are – (i) to declare first part of Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules, 1977) as ultra vires and (ii) to quash endorsement, dated 20th/26th December 1984 (Annexure-D) informing petitioner that Government is not desirous of appointing him aas Munsiff considering report regarding his character and antecedents.
2. Prayer itself pre- supposes that he has been selected by Selection Authority and his name is included in select list of candidates for recruitment as Munsiff, but, Government has declined to appoint him as Munsiff for reasons mentioned in the impugned endorsement.
3. Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) reads thus:-
“10. Conditions relating to suitability and certificates of character :- No person shall be appointed to any service or post unless the appointing authority is satisfied that he is of good character and is in all respects suitable for appointment to Government service. Every candidate selected for direct recruitment shall furnish to the appointing authority certificates, given not more than six months prior to the date of his selection, by two respectable persons unconnected with his college or university, and not related to him testifying to his character, in addition to the certificate or certificates which may be required to be furnished from the educational institution last attended by the candidate. If any doubt arises regarding the suitability of a candidate for appointment to Government service, the decision of the Government shall he final.”
Competency to frame a Rule of this nature is not questioned. A Rule similar to this exists from the date of independence in almost all States in one form or the other. State while prescribing literary and technical acquirements can also prescribe moral character as one of the essential qualification amongst others. But what is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner is that discretion given to Government confers an arbitrary and unguided power of refusal of appointment though successful in a competitive examination. A rule of this nature has stood the test of times and has remained unshaken.
If good character is prescribed as a condition precedent for recruitment, it has right to decide what shall be the evidence of that character which “according to the experience of mankind, reasonably tends to prove the fact and make it a test” – vide Benjamin Hawker v. People of the State of New York, 170 US 189. Dictum of Supreme Court of United States of America in Dent v. West Virginia, 129 US 114 to the effect :
“The nature and extent of the qualifications required must depend primarily upon the judgment of the State as to their necessity.”
apply in all force to the present case.
This Court in Ranganathachar Agnihotri v. State of Mysore, 1966(2) Kar. L.J. 208 while upholding Rule 4(2) of the Mysore Munsiff’s Recruitment Rules stated that observation of Supreme Court in Banarsidas and Ors. v. State of U.P., ‘cannot be understood as endorsing any arbitrary action on the part of the Government when appointment to a post is governed by specific Rules.’ It is stated thus :-
“Undoubtedly, the High Court is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction in regard to the subjective satisfaction of the Government. All that is being done by the High Court, is merely to assure itself that the subjective satisfaction is the result of relevant and reasonable, and not irrelevant and unreasonable consideration.”
and ultimately held that refusal to appoint on the ground that he was a member of R.S.S. is an irrelevent consideration. This view is reinforced by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashankar Raghuvanshi And Anr., , wherein it is stated thus :-
“We do not have the slightest doubt that the whole business of seeking police reports, about the political faith, belief and association, and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to the ideals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. We think it offends the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual’s service”.
Object of referring to these decisions is to demonstrate that denial of recruitment in the instant case is not based on like grounds warranting interference. Supreme Court while confirming the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Banarsi das’s4 case which in turn had upheld the validity of a similar rule has stated thus :-
“It is open to the appointing authority to lay down the re-quisite qualifications for recruitment to Government service and it is open to that authority to lay down such pre-requisite conditions of appointment as would be conducive to the maintenance of proper discipline amongst Government servants……..Like all other employees Government are also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment under the Government.”
It is further held :-
“Government can appoint only such persons whose conduct is free from blemish.”
In view of all these principles, it is not possible to accept the plea that impugned Rule confers arbitrary and unguided power on Government.
Mere inclusion of his name in the list of selected candidates does not clothe with right to seek a mandamus directing respondents to recruit him as Munsiff. It is domain of the Government either to accept or to reject the recommendation. Refusal to appoint for reasons mentioned it endorsement can neither be considered as irrelevant nor capricious.
4. Lastly, Sri Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for petitioner relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India, contended that refusal to appoint on grounds assigned in endorsement, constitute stigma, hence without holding an enquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing, appointment denied is illegal and void. Decision has neither analogy nor resemblance. Issue involved in the said case was as to whether discharge of a probationer tantamounts to penalty or termination simpliciter in exercise of powers conferred under contract or relevant rule. Ratio of the said decision is that conclusion arrived at after holding an enquiry regarding suitability or continuance will not attract Article 411 of the Constitution of India and enquiry held for that purpose is not a punitive proceeding. I am afraid, instead of assisting petitioner, it may operate against him. Refusal to appoint for not fulfilling qualification prescribed in Rule 10 of the Rules does not resemble an element of punitive character; there is no necessity for Government to hold an enquiry before issuing impugned endorsement.
5. No merit. Writ petition is rejected.