IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9641 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANEESH.S.B,S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, ARUMALOORKONAM PUTHENVEEDU,KUNNATHUKAL DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY IT'S DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4. THE COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE CAMP,PEROORKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN - SC ADV. MR. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9641OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has been advised for recruitment as Police Constable by the Public Service Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not being deputed for training on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. According to the petitioner, such stand is against the decision of this Court in Christopher Jose v. State of Kerala [(1999) (3) KLT 285] and other similar cases. The petitioner also submits that relying on those judgments, similar cases have been disposed of. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs; “i) issue a writ of Mandamus commanding and compelling the respondent to allow petitioner to attend training as Police Constable as per Ext P1 advice memo. ii) Declare that pendency of Ext P3 case is not a ground to deny appointment to petitioner invoking Rule 10(b) (iii) of part II of KS & SSR”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. From the above said decision relied on by the petitioner, I find that a learned Judge of this Court has issued certain directions in a writ petition filed by an identically situated W.P.(C)No.9641/11 2 person. Accordingly, following that decision, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: The respondents shall permit the petitioner to attend the ensuing training after following the procedures prescribed thereof and other rules relating to the same. It is clarified that if the petitioner is finally found ineligible based on the judgment of the criminal court to enter or continue in Government service as Police Constable, the respondents will be free to take appropriate action including recovery of the entire expenses incurred by the Government for providing training to the petitioner. It is also directed that the petitioner shall execute a bond undertaking that he shall refund the entire amount incurred by the Government for the purpose of his training. On execution of such bond, along with others the petitioner shall also be permitted to attend the training. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the concerned Commandant for compliance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd