IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35229 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LIJU GEORGE,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE KUTTY,THEKKIDAYIL HOUSE,CHUNGATHARA.PO, ANDIKUNNU,MALAPPURAM (DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPURAM. 2. THE COMMANDANT,OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT, APB-MSP,MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.35236/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.35229 (W) & 35236 (Y) of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Police Constables (Armed Police Battalion - MSP). Ext.P1 in these writ petitions are the advice memos issued by the PSC. It is stated that thereupon they approached the 2nd respondent. But, however, they were not admitted for training. 2. In so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No.35229/2009 is concerned, the reason stated is the pendency of C.C.No.395/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilamboor in which he is an accused. Similarly in so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No.35236/2009 is concerned, he is an accused in C.C.Nos.648/2008 & 32/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. The petitioners contend that it is only because they are accused in the aforesaid criminal cases that they are not admitted for training. 3. In several cases of this nature, this Court had occasion to WP(C) Nos.35229 & 35236/2009 -2- consider the case of persons like the petitioners being not admitted for training. The entire issues arising in this context have been considered by this Court in the judgment 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 - (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. WP(C) Nos.35229 & 35236/2009 -3- (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 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 WP(C) Nos.35229 & 35236/2009 -4- 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 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 WP(C) Nos.35229 & 35236/2009 -5- account of the pendency of the criminal case, provided the verification report positively indicates the character and antecedents of the candidate concerned.” 4. In view of the similarity of the facts of these cases and the facts of the case dealt with in the aforesaid judgment, I am inclined to think that the petitioners are entitled to similar orders. 5. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall issue orders enabling the petitioners to undergo training in pursuance to Ext.P1 advice memos for appointment. It is directed that even if they are admitted for training or they complete the training, the respondents will be free to initiate action against the petitioners as directed by this Court in the judgment referred to above. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition filed by the respective petitioner before the 2nd respondent for compliance. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg