THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.7627 OF 2009 DT.11.11.2009 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Petitioners And Banoth Vittal .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.7627 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Respondents in O.A.No.6647 of 2004 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal have challenged the final order of the Tribunal dated 12.9.2008. The said O.A. was filed by the respondent herein, who applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Constable in pursuance of the notification issued by the petitioners in the year 2002. Though the respondent was appeared for the written test and interview, under communication of the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, dated 13.9.2004, he was informed that he was involved in Cr.No.5/99 under Section 108 Cr.P.C. of Yellareddypet Police Station and bound over before the Executive Magistrate and Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellareddypet, for good behaviour for one year and he belongs to CPI ML PWG militant and hence his case has been carefully examined and in view of the involvement in criminal case, his request to issue appointment orders for the post of Police Constable (Civil) is considered and rejected. The said order was questioned before the Tribunal under the impugned order. The Tribunal expressed its doubts about the veracity of the allegations and also of the view that it would not be a disqualification as there is no material to show that the respondent was an active member of CPI (ML) PWG Party and as per the F.I.R they are only sympathizers of the party. In the circumstances, the Tribunal felt that the impugned order denying appointment to the respondent is not justified and consequently set aside the same by directing the petitioners herein to process the applicant for medical test and training as per Rules and issue necessary orders. The said order was under challenge in this writ petition. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy,, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.26147 of 2008, dated 19.3.2009, wherein a similar question was considered and the action of the authorities in not granting appointment to the candidate was upheld. The learned Government Pleader also relies upon the reasons given in the impugned order before the Tribunal which not only states about the involvement of the respondent in the said Crime No.5/99, but a further reason that he belongs to the militant organization and consequently found not desirable. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner[1] wherein at para 8 it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Based on the above, the learned counsel contends that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the respondent is not supported by any reasons except the said involvement. The learned counsel states that the respondent had disclosed the said crime registered in the attestation form and there is no suppression of any material. It is no doubt true that the respondent had mentioned the crime number in the attestation form, but the contention that the order of rejection does not give reasons is not sustainable. The said order contains two reasons, namely, involvement of the respondent in Cr.No.5/99 under Section 108 Cr.P.C. of P.S.Yellareddypet and bound over before the Executive Magistrate and M.R.O., Yellareddypet for good behaviour for one year and he belongs to CPI (ML) PWG militant. The twin reasons therefore are sufficient for his rejection in view of the fact that the appointment is made to a uniformed service as Police Constable. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon another decision of this Court reported in Kalluri Vassayya v. Superintendent of Post Offices (A.P.)[2] wherein it was held that freedom of thought and expression means that a citizen is free to believe in any ideas or ideology he chooses, and is also entitled to express the same, except to the extent prohibited by law. Similarly, the freedom of association entitles him to join any party or association, notwithstanding its political colour or programme, so long as that party or organization is not banned or declared illegal by law. The aforesaid decision also, in our view, does not help the respondent inasmuch as the impugned order mentioned the association of the respondent with the banned organization and the desirability of the candidate for uniformed police force has to be judged with reference to the antecedents, which were found in verification. In the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.26147 of 2008, dated 19.3.2009, referred to above, we had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish and another[3] and several other decisions which have held that if the appointing authority is not satisfied on account of links or association with a prohibited organization, such candidate is not desirable to be appointed to a uniformed service. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal under the impugned order. The Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the O.A. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly we set aside the same. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 11.11.2009 kpr [1] AIR 1978 SC 851 [2] 1980 (2) SLR 433 [3] 2006 (2) ALT 58 (SC)