IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35582 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ KRANLAL.S., POLICE CONSTABLE TRAINEE, KAP 1 BATTALION, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT AMBALASSERI CHERIAZHEEKKAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMANDANT, KAP 1-BATTALION, R.V.PURAM, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35582 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was advised by the PSC for appointment as a Police Constable. Ext.P1 is the memo of advice. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P1, he reported before the 3rd respondent to be admitted for training. Although petitioner was admitted, he was allowed to continue only upto 3/12/2009 for the reason that he is an accused in CC No.1041/06 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Karunagapally and in Crime No.917/05 of Karunagapally Police Station. 2. In several cases of this nature, this Court had occasion to consider whether for the mere pendency of criminal cases, a person can be refused to be admitted for police training. In Suresh v. Public Service Commission (2008(2) KLT 441), the entire aspects arising has been considered and the following directions have been issued: Government shall consider the case of the petitioners in each one of these cases in the context of R.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, WPC 35582/09 :2 : 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 cases, 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 R.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 R.10(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 similarity of the facts of this case and the case decided in the aforesaid judgment, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to similar relief. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 3rd respondent WPC 35582/09 :3 : shall permit the petitioner to continue training. It is made clear that the continuity of training as above will not stand in the way of the respondents in initiating action in terms of the direction issued in the judgment referred to above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp