V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.
1. The petitioner a law graduate in the Police Department, has worked for long as a P.S.I, and later as A.P.P.-II when the new Criminal Procedure Code came into force, but has since been reverted to the Police Department after a screening process. Certainly, a law degree and long experience must weigh in the selection and the grievance of the petitioner is that these strong points in his favour have been disregarded and he has been discriminated against because those without a law degree and with worse record have been retained as A.P.Ps. Having perused the records in the case we do not feel that there is a case of unreasonableness or perversity on the part of the Government in reverting the petitioner so as to justify judicial review, especially since his service record is prima facie a picture of “lousy” remissness and indifference. Nevertheless, two striking circumstances have come out in the course of the submissions which deserve Government's consideration. A prosecutor must as far as possible be a law person and one who holds a law degree has other things being equal better entitlement — although, if he be found no good, may not be selected or continued. Secondly, and more importantly dubious characters should not remain in the prosecutorial staff where competence includes character and personal morals as components. We make this observation because the petitioner, appearing in person drew our attention through an affidavit to the case of one Ram Karan Mirdha, who has been retained after screening as fit to continue in the prosecutorial position. However, his career dossier includes among some other punishments, dismissal from service “for committing rape”. If quondam rapists, dangerous to society were restored as prosecuting agency, dark clouds would descend on the sky of justice. Which Government in this country would be reckless enough to appoint one with a rapist record as a police officer or worse, as prosecutor? But we make no more comments because it will be unfair to do so in the absence of fuller circumstances and the affected person who is not before us. The unilateral declarations of a motivated party like the petitioner must be received with scepticism and it is far from us to injure anyone who has not been heard. But we do feel that Government to redeem its own integrity, must do a second screening of the screening process and ensure that efficiency, probity and basic morality are not expendable virtues for prosecutors in courts.
2. All that we need do to meet the ends of justice in the present case while refusing special leave is to permit the petitioner to move Government for a reconsideration of his case and if he does so within one month from today the State will re-examine the merits and render administrative justice according to his deserts. We express no further opinion and dismiss the present petition.