S.N. Andley, J.
(1) In this petition, the petitioner had prayed for a certificate of fitness under clause (1) of Article 132 and sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution of India. However, at the time of hearing, Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has confined the prayer only to sub-clauses (a) :and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution.
(2) The petitioner had applied for the post of Director of the Central Institute of Orthopedics to the Union Public Service Commission to whom , requisition had been sent by the Government of India. Respond fit No. 3 was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for the said post and was appointed thereto. The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the proceedings resulting in the selection offers pandect No. 3; the recommendation of the Union Public Service Com mission in that behalf and for a direction against the Union of India not to make the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the said post on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission. No prayer was made in this petition that the petitioner should be appointed to the said post.
(3) The petitioner claims a certificate under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution on the ground that the value of the subject matter of dispute in the first instance and still in dispute is more than Rs. 20,000.00 and this claim has been made on the basis that while the present emoluments of the petitioner were Rs. 1,635.00 per month, the emoluments pertaining to the post of Director, Central Institute of Orthopedics were about Rs, 2,575, per month; that respondent No. 3 will be. holding this post for nearly 15 years and for this period the petitioner would be denied the right to be appointed to the said post. It is, thereforee, contended that the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute is not less than Rs. 20,000.00. It is contended that the subject matter of dispute was the post of Director of the said Institute and its value, presumably according to the aforesaid figures, would be not less than Rs. 20,000.00. In our opinion, this claim is unfounded. The relief sought by the petitioner was against the appointment of respondent No. 3. Even if the appointment of respondent No. 3 had been quashed by this Court, the post or the emoluments attached to it could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation as the petitioner had not claimed that he should have been appointed in place of respondent No. 3. Again, even if the appointment of respondent No. 3 had been quashed, the petitioner may or may not have had a chance or prospect to be appointed to that post and a mere chance or prospect of appointment to a post cannot be equated to the subject matter of the dispute for the purpose of sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, on his own showing, did not possess the essential qualifications for appointment to the said post.
(4) Then it is contended that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. The petitioner urges that a substantial question of law arises as to the interpretation of the Central Health Service Rules and a further question was whether the relaxation clause contained in Annexure I to the Second Schedule of the said Rules was not vocative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(5) By the judgment of this Court the aforesaid Rules have been interpreted and it has been held that the discretion vested in the Union Public Service Commission to relax an essential qualification is not vocative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A mere question of interpretation of Rules even though it be a question of law does not make the case a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. As we understand it, a case has to be of an exceptional nature requiring an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court before it can be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. So far as the question of arbitrariness is concerned, we have held, on principles which are well established, that the discretion vested in the Union Public Service Commission to relax an essential qualification is well guided and has to be exercised in accordance with such guidance which is to be found in the Rules and, thereforee, the power to relax an essential qualification has not been found by us to be arbitrary or unguided.
(6) The power to relax appeared to us to be a necessary power and, on the interpretation of the Rules, we did not find any conflict between the power of relaxation to be exercised by the Union Public Service Commission and the power of relaxation of the Central Government. The benefit of the power of relaxation is available to all candidates who even though not possessing the essential qualifications are otherwise well qualified for the post. In our opinion, the petitioner has failed to make out any case under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution,
(7) It is then contended that the question of bias in favor of respon dent No. 3 or against the petitioner is also a substantial question of law to justify the grant of certificate under sub-clause (c). It is contended that the finding of this Court as to bias should have been given after considering all the allegations cumulatively and not individually. We think that the judgment does not suffer from this defect. But even if it were so, a finding as to bias is a finding of fact which cannot justify the grant of certificate under sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of Article 133 of the Constitution.
(8) We, thereforee, dismiss this petition. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who appeared to oppose this petition will have their costs. Counsel's lee is assessed at Rs. 100.00.