IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33522 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BRUNO STEEPHEN, THOTTATHUVILAKOM, RC STREET, BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMANDANT KAP IV BATTALION, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR. 5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KASARAGOD. SC SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33522 OF 2009 (I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has been selected and his name was included in the main list published by the PSC for the post of Police Constable (KAP IV) Battalion, Kasaragod District. He appeared for Medical Fitness Examination and verification of certificates on 11.11.2009. It is stated that although he is entitled to be deputed for training which is to commence on 25.11.2009, he was not issued an order of appointment for the reason that he is the 4th accused in SC.No.871/05 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. The contention raised is that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a disqualification under Rule 10(b) of Part II KS&SSR. Therefore he should be appointed and deputed for training. 2. As rightly pointed by the counsel for the petitioner issue of identical nature has been considered by this court in Ext.P4 judgment in WP(c).No.24323/07 and connected cases where the following directions have been issued. WPC.No.33522 /09 :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 WPC.No.33522 /09 :3 : 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. WPC.No.33522 /09 :4 : 19. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- 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 a period of three months from WPC.No.33522 /09 :5 : 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 WPC.No.33522 /09 :6 : (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. Having regard to the above law laid down by the aforesaid judgment and the facts of this case being similar, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 4. On the production of a copy of the judgment, the 4th respondent shall issue appropriate orders enabling the petitioner to undergo training which shall be on a provisional basis. It is directed that it will also be open to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions issued by this court in the judgment referred to above and pass appropriate orders thereon. Once orders are passed in compliance with the directions in the aforesaid judgment, further continuance of the training of the petitioner and if training is completed, his continuance in service will depend upon the outcome of the WPC.No.33522 /09 :7 : order passed. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondents 1 and 4 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/