IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30838 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JYOTHISH PRASAD.C.P., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PRASAD, RESIDING AT JYOTHISH NIVAS, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, S.A.P. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.30838 Of 2010 ================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T 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 decisions 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) Declare that the petitioner is entitled for the training and the consequential appointment pursuant to the training to post of Police constable (ABP) until he is convicted in CC 359/08 pending before judicial first class magistrate court II, Neyyattinkara. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to include the petitioner for training and appoint him as police constable (Armed Police Battalion) under the 3rd respondent after the successful completion of training unhampered by the pendency of a falsely fabricated criminal case against him.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. From the abovesaid 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 person. Accordingly, following that decision, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: w.p.c.30838/10 2 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. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge