IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 2879 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29319/2007 Dated 11/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ---------------------- P.H.SHAJAHAN, S/O.P.M.HAMEED, AGED 35 YEARS, PATHALUPURAYIDATHIL, MUKKADA P.O., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PATHALULUPRAYIDATHIL, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMANDANT, KERALA ARMED POLICE 5TH BATTALION, MANIYAR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY G.P.SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.2879 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: Appellant is the writ petitioner. He challenges Ext.P6 order of the Government to the extent it directs him to undergo training again. The learned Single Judge repelled the challenge. Hence, this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner was advised by the P.S.C to the post of Police Constable and he joined duty on 25.1.1996. He completed the mandatory training on 15.11.1996. He was appointed as probationer on 16.11.1996. While so, by order dated 3.12.1996, he was sanctioned leave without allowance to take up employment abroad. He proceeded on leave on 3.12.1996 within one month of the commencement of probation. Later, he cancelled the unavailed portion of the leave and rejoined duty in 1999. He started his probation afresh. While so, he was found to be unauthorisedly absent from duty since 28.7.1999. He was served WA.NO.2879/07 . 2 with a show cause notice on 5.7.2000 asking him to explain why his probation should not be terminated. He submitted his reply. On 12.8.2000 his appointing authority found that his explanation was not satisfactory and, therefore, terminated his probation. He filed an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. He filed a review before the Government. The review petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 order. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “In the review petition he has stated that his family consist of his aged parents, sisters, wife and children and they find no other way for their livelihood. The Director General of Police has also recommended that Shri.P.H.Shajahan deserves sympathetic consideration. It is pleaded that mercy may be shown on him considering his poor financial condition. Considering various facts mentioned in the review petition submitted by Shri. Shajahan and taking into a lenient view Government have tentatively decided to reinstate him into the service as a new entrant and subject to a condition that he shall undergo training as per existing norms and advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission have sought for in this regard and the Commission have agreed to the tentative decision of Government as per the letter read as 6th paper above. In these circumstances by accepting the advice of Kerala Public Service Commission , the punishment of removal of service imposed on Shri.P.H. Shajahan, Ex PC 2627 is cancelled and he WA.NO.2879/07 . 3 may be reinstated into service as a new entrant with prospective effect as a Special Case subject to the condition that he shall undergo training as per existing norms and rules”. 3. The said order is an order passed on compassionate grounds having regard to his family background. In other words, it was not based on the merit of the case canvassed by the appellant. But, he feels aggrieved by the direction that he should undergo the training again. Challenging the said condition in Ext.P6, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same. Hence this writ appeal. 4. The petitioner underwent training in 1996. He was unauthorisedly absent from 1999 onwards, which led to termination of his service. Since he was out of service for a very long period, if the Government in its discretion feel that a condition that he should undergo training should be imposed for his reinstatement in service, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The learned Single Judge held that the challenge made against that condition is unsustainable. 5. We find nothing illegal or irrational with the view taken by WA.NO.2879/07 . 4 the learned Single Judge. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner cannot be permitted to enjoy the concession and challenge the condition imposed. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WA.NO.2879/07 . 5