The court emphasized the right of the State to verify the character and antecedents of employees and the permissibility to terminate services based on unsuitability for government service.

1. The petitioner was selected for recruitment as a peon by the Public Service Commission. The memorandum in that behalf is Ext. P2 dated 27-5-1961.

2. The order of appointment is Ext. P-3 dated 27-7-1961. It says that the petitioner "is provisionally appointed as Peon in that Office of the Sales Tax Officer, Manantoddy."

3. Ext. P-3 covers the appointment of some other candidates as well. The provisional character of all the appointments is again emphasised in the last sentence of the order. It says that the candidates are informed "that their appointments are purely provisional."

4. The orders impugned in the petition are Ext. P4 dated 3-10-1961 and Ext. P5 dated 15-3-1962. Ext. P-4 refers to Ext. P-3, mentions the fact that the petitioner "was provisionally appointed as Peon in the office of the Sales Tax Officer, Manantoddy" and says:

"the provisional appointment made cannot be absolute and hence the individual is informed that his service will be terminated from this Department with effect from the afternoon of 31-10-1961."

5. The affidavit on behalf of the State dated 27-8-'63 says:

"On verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner through the prescribed channels it was found that he was not suitable for appointment to Government Service. The petitioner's services which were merely provisional were therefore terminated by the respondent."

There is a further affidavit on behalf of the State, an affidavit affirmed by the Home Secretary on 16-11-1963. That affidavit says:

"The Government's conclusion in regard to the petitioner's character and antecedents was based upon the report of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. and Railways, Trivandrnm. The petitioner's allegation that irrelevant and extraneous considerations have weighed with the Government in coming to its conclusion on the character and antecedents of the petitioner are incorrect and devoid of any factual foundation.

The Government have the right to satisfy themselves about the suitability of a candidate with reference to his character and antecedents before entertaining him into its service. It is permissible for the Government to eschew a person from Public Service on grounds that he is likely to be disloyal or to abuse the confidence which will have to be reposed in him by virtue of the appointment."

6. The first contention of the petitioner is that there has been a violation of Art.16 of the Constitution which provides that "there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State." The right of the State to verify the character and antecedents of the petitioner is not disputed. The submission is that the conduct of the verification was not proper and that the conclusion reached was based on extraneous considerations.

7. In the light of what has been stated in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State dated 27-8-1963 & 16-11-1963 we are not prepared to hold that there Was any defect in the process of verification adopted in this case. The only further question, therefore, is whether extraneous considerations have influenced the State in terminating the services of the petitioner. If they have, the order of termination cannot be sustained and our judgment in O.P. No. 1421 of 1962 is to that effect.

8. On the basis of the affidavits filed on behalf of the State we cannot but conclude that no extraneous or irrelevant consideration has influenced the State. A further probe into the matter is possible only by looking into the confidential papers on the subject.

9. The affidavit on behalf of the State dated 16-11-1963 says:

"Without prejudice to the claim of privilege under S.123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act,1 am prepared to make available to this Hon'ble Court the file relating to the report of the Deputy Inspector General of Police on the basis of which the Government's conclusions regarding the character and antecedents of the petitioner were arrived