IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34728 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RAGESH, S/O.MADHAVAN ADIYODI, AGED 25 YEARS, THATTAMKANDY HOUSE, KARAYAD P.O., MEPPAYYUR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMANDANT, MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE BATTALION, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (L) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.34728 of 2009 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was selected for appointment as Police Constable (Armed Police Battalion - MSP). Ext.P1 is the memo issued by the PSC advising him for appointment. According to the petitioner, he reported before the 1st respondent. But, however, he was not allowed to undergo training on the ground that he is an accused in S.C.No.551/2008 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-2, Kozhikkode. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to admit him for training as Police Constable, on the ground that the mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground for denying the benefit of even appointment. 2. Issues of similar nature have been considered by this Court in Suresh v. Public Service Commission (2008(2) KLT 441), where this Court has directed thus:- “18. I find it advantageous to summarize the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the above discussion. I therefore, hold that - WP(C) No.34728/2009 -2- (i). Government has the power and even an obligation under Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R to satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of a candidate are such as to qualify him for “such service”. (ii). If the Government is satisfied that the candidate is otherwise eligible in terms of Rule 10(b)(iii), then it is not necessary to pass a separate order in that regard. (iii). But if the Government is not satisfied that the character and antecedents of a candidate is not such as to qualify him for the service in question, then it shall pass a reasoned order specifically indicating the reasons as to why the Government has arrived at such a conclusion. (iv). Mere pendency of a criminal case as such cannot be treated as a disqualification within the meaning of Rule 10(b) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. (v). At the same time, pendency of a criminal case as such need not be ignored as a totally irrelevant factor by the Government, while it passes an order under Rule 10(b) as mentioned above. Government while exercising its powers under Rule 10(b) shall inter alia keep in mind the parameters as mentioned above. I hasten to make it clear that the list is by no means exhaustive. (vi). Essentially the Government should, by virtue of an WP(C) No.34728/2009 -3- objective satisfaction, satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of a person are such that he is not rendered unfit for such service. Obviously the nature of the alleged offence in question and whether he has been involved in such offence or any such offence earlier are relevant factors which will enter into the decision making process of the Government. (vii). An order under Rule 10(b)(iii) as mentioned above, can be passed only after the candidate is put on notice and after giving him an opportunity of being heard. Such order could necessarily be the subject matter of judicial review. 19. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- 20. Government shall consider the case of the petitioners in each one of these cases in the context of Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. If, after going through the relevant materials, Government is of the opinion that the pendency of criminal case as such need not be treated as a deterrent for treating the candidate as unfit for the service within the terms of the Rules, then, it shall proceed to issue necessary directions in that regard to the Subordinate Authorities. If, on the other hand, Government tentatively feels that the character and antecedents of a candidate are not satisfactory, then it shall issue a notice to the particular candidate, hear him and take a decision keeping in mind the observations above. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within WP(C) No.34728/2009 -4- a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in each one of these cases. In all these case, where the candidates have undergone training or have completed training, such training shall be treated as regular and proper subject to any adverse order that may be passed by the Government in any particular case under Rule 10(b)(iii) in the manner aforementioned. In cases, where the criminal case as such has ended in the acquittal as in the case of Writ Petition No.21214/2005 and where the candidate has also successfully completed the training, Government shall proceed to pass orders directing the candidate concerned to be permitted to join duty. If in any of these cases Government has already satisfied itself with regard to the character and antecedents of the candidate concerned, on the basis of the verification report as contemplated by Rule 10(b)(iii), then Government need not consider itself bound to undertake a fresh exercise as indicated above, merely on account of the pendency of the criminal case, provided the verification report positively indicates the character and antecedents of the candidate concerned.” 3. In view of the similarity of the facts of this case and the facts of the case dealt with in the aforesaid judgment, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is entitled to similar benefits. 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that WP(C) No.34728/2009 -5- on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall issue orders enabling the petitioner to undergo training in pursuance to Ext.P1 memo of advice for appointment. 5. It is made clear that irrespective of his admission for training or its completion, it will be open to the respondents to deal with the case of the petitioner in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the judgment extracted herein above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg