Judgment 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 super-session 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and the letter issued to you provisionally accepting your application for admission to the examination aforesaid is withdrawn.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. 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.'' 3. IN the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the reaction of his application for sitting at the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Examination 1980. 4. 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 where after 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. 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. 5. BE that as it may, the Selection Committee seems to have taken the view that since the petitioner's services were terminated on ground of unsuitability for Judicial Service, the petitioner was not fit for the U. P. Higher Judicial Service. This is apparent from the letter of the Registrar in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner's services as Judicial Officer were terminated on ground of unsuitability. It appears that for this reason, the petitioner was not found to be a suitable candidate for the U. P. Higher Judicial Service. 6. THE question is whether the Selection Committee had jurisdiction to reject a candidature on the ground of unsuitability for the Judicial Service. Part IV of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975 lays down the procedure for direct recruitment. This part consists of rules 17, 18 and 19. Rule 18 provides :- Procedure of selection- "18. (1) The Selection Committee referred to in rule 16 shall scrutinise the applications received and may thereafter hold such examination, as it may consider necessary for judging the suitability of the candidates. The Committee may call for interview such of the applicants who in its opinion have qualified for interview after scrutiny and examination. (2) In assessing the merits of a candidate the Selection Committee shall have due regard to his professional ability, character, personality and health. 7. RULE 13 of Part III of the Rules is also material and relevant. It says :- Character- "13. (1) The character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to render him suitable in the opinion of the Governor, in all respects for appointment to the service. Note-Persons dismissed by the Union Government or by a State Government or by a Corporation owned or controlled by the Union or a State Government shall not be eligible for recruitment. 8. THE scheme of rule 18 appears to be that the Selection Committee is to scrutinise the applications received by it. Note-Persons dismissed by the Union Government or by a State Government or by a Corporation owned or controlled by the Union or a State Government shall not be eligible for recruitment. 8. THE scheme of rule 18 appears to be that the Selection Committee is to scrutinise the applications received by it. At this stage, the candidates, whose applications are not in proper order, can be eliminated. At this stage too, the applications of persons, who are found to be without merit having due regard to professional ability, character, personality and health, can also be excluded. Normally, it may not be possible for the Selection Committee to judge a candidate's professional ability, character, personality or health at the stage of scrutiny of the application but if there is available material, rejection of an application on the ground that the candidate is not of proper merit, can be done at the stage of scrutiny. One of the factors u/rule 18 (2) to which due regard is to be paid by the Selection Committee is the character of the candidate. As mentioned in rule 13 of 1975 Rules, the character of candidate must be such as to render him suitable, in all respects, for appointment to the Higher Judicial Service. If the Selection Committee, on the materials available to it, finds a particular candidate as not suitable, in all respects, for appointment to the Higher Judicial Service, the application of such a candidate can equally well be rejected at the stage of scrutiny. 9. IN the present case, the Selection Committee appears to have found that the petitioner's services as a Judicial Officer had been terminated only few years back on the ground of unsuitability for Judicial Service. This being so, the Selection Committee was well within its power to consider the case and reject the application on the view that since the petitioner's character rendered him unsuitable, he was not of proper merit for the Higher Judicial Service. 10. WE, therefore, find no merit in the first submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no power to reject the application at the time of scrutiny, on ground of unsuitability. The second submission is without merit. As is apparent from the Registrar's letter, the petitioner's application was "provisionally accepted for admission to the written test". This clearly means that the acceptance was not final or irrevocable, but only provisional. The second submission is without merit. As is apparent from the Registrar's letter, the petitioner's application was "provisionally accepted for admission to the written test". This clearly means that the acceptance was not final or irrevocable, but only provisional. Being provisional, it can validly be recalled subsequently. There was no question of reviewing a final decision. It appears to have been a case of completing the process of scrutiny. In our opinion, no principle of equitable estoppel comes into the picture. 11. NO other point was pressed. 12. IN our opinion, the petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed but we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.