IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32231 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASSIM.S,S/O.SHARAFUDEEN,AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT S.M.V.HOUSE,JAWA COTTAGE, PALLINADA,KADINAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD SRI.V.S.SALIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SERETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 4. THE COMMANDANT,SPECIAL ARMED POLICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 6. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,DISTRICT OFFICE 695 004, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.NANDAKUMAR ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.32231 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and advised for appointment as Police Constable. After appointment, such selected constables are required to undergo a training conducted by the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner was deputed for training. The training commenced on 11.10.2010. While the petitioner was undergoing training, the 4th respondent, by Ext.P3, directed that the petitioner be excluded from the training on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner attended training till 18.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed not to attend the training. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P3 order and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent to permit the Petitioner to undergo training along with the batch to whom training is commenced from 11.10.2010.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. This Court has, in other cases, relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Christopher Jose v. State of Kerala [(1999) (3) KLT 285] held that mere existence of a criminal case is no w.p.c.32231/10 2 ground to deny a person appointment pursuant to a selection by the PSC. In fact following similar judgment, I have also in several cases, one of which is W.P.(C).No.30986/2010, allowed similar selected persons against whom criminal cases are pending, to attend the training subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, following those decisions, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: The respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue the training as deputed, for which he has already been deputed. But 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 a 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. 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 a bond, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue 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 w.p.c.32231/10 3