Judgment

SHARMA, J. :- The appellants application for appointment as a District Munsif by the State of Andhra Pradesh in the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (briefly described as the ,Commission,), respondent No. 1, which the appellant challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by a writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the prayer and directed the first respondent to consider the candidature of the appellant for the appointment in question. The respondents challenged the decision under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 22 of 1985. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. We have granted leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution allowing the appellant to appeal against the said decision.

2. The appointment of District Munsifs is regulated by Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In response to an advertisement issued by the ,Commission, for filling up a large number of vacancies of District Munsifs by direct recruitment, the appellant applied. Subsequently a second advertisement was issued on 27-5-1984 with reference to vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, and the appellant made a second application. His. present claim is with respect to these reserved posts.

3. After passing the law Examination the appellant got himself enrolled as an Advocate on the rolls of the State Bar Council on 24-2-1977 and practised law till 31-3-1981. On 1-4-1981 he was appointed in the service of Hindustan Shipyard, an undertaking owned by the Government of India, and claims to have remained in charge of the legal cell. As stated earlier, he applied in pursuance of the second advertisement dated 27-5-1984 notified by the ,Commission,. In the opinion of the ,Commission, the appellant did not fulfil the necessary qualification fixed under the Rules, and was therefore ineligible for appointment.

4. The Rules have laid down three modes for appointment, namely, by direct recruitment, by promotion and by transfer. Rule 12 requires inter alia as an essential qualification for a candidate for appointment as a District Munsif that he should be in actual practice and should have been so engaged for not less than 3 years in a court of civil or criminal jurisdiction. Since the appellant was not in actual law practice, reliance has been placed on his behalf on the Proviso to the aforementioned Rule, which is quoted below:

"Provided that in the case of a person who is already in Government service and who applied for appointment to the post of District Munsif by direct recruitment, he must have actually practised for a period of not less than 3 years immediately prior to the date of his entering the Government service."

It is contended that as the appellant had practised for a requisite period immediately prior to the date of his entering the service of Hindustan Shipyard, he must be held to be qualified for appointment. The appellant,s claim is being refuted by the respondents on the ground that he was not in Government service. The stand of the respondents appears to be well founded. The Hindustan although a fully owned under Central Government, cannot be equated with the Government or State except for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution. The undertaking has a separate legal entity. The expression "State" does not by reason of Art. 12 of the Constitution include the undertaking except for the limited purposewhich is not attracted in the present case.

5-6. Mr. Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the appellant, appreciating this. position, contended that the word "Government" should be deleted from the Proviso mentioned above, so as to save it from the vice of discrimination. The argument is that no distinction ought to be made between the experience which a candidate acquires in Government service and the experience one acquires in any other service, whether public or private in n