IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37364 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SIBY MATHEWS, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37364 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is an Additional Director General of Police in the State. He claims to be eligible to be considered for Director General Grade. According to the petitioner, the Screening Committee headed by the Chief Secretary is scheduled to meet soon and the Committee is to prepare the eligibility list, which will be placed before the Cabinet for their consideration and final decision. 3. Petitioner submits that in order to sabotage his chances to be included in the list, a complaint was filed against him before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, in which the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge passed Ext.P2 order forwarding the said complaint to the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC for conducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations. Petitioner submits that on its receipt, Ext.P3 report has been submitted by the Director stating that there is no substance in the allegations. WPC 37364/09 :2 : 4. Irrespective of Ext.P3 report, according to the petitioner, there is a likelihood that in view of the pendency of the proceedings, he is likely to be excluded from consideration by the Screening Committee. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed with a prayer that he shall not be excluded from consideration for inclusion by the Screening Committee. 5. As already noticed, except that the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge has forwarded a complaint for a preliminary enquiry as provided under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, as on date, no proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the pendency of the matter at this stage can be no reason to exclude the petitioner from consideration. Therefore, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for conferment of Director General Grade, he is entitled to be considered irrespective of Exts.P2 or P3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for conferment of Director General Grade ignoring Exts.P2 and P3, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp