Akbar M. vs The Kerala Public Service Commission, The District Officer, The Director General of Police and The Commander S.A.P.

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner has been advised for recruitment as Police Constable by the Public Service Commission. The grievance of

the petitioner is that the petitioner is not being deputed for training on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. According to the

petitioner, such stand is against the decisions of this Court in Christopher Jose v. State of Kerala (1999) (3) KLT 285 and other similar cases. The

petitioner also submits that relying on those judgments, similar cases have been disposed of. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty as

Police Constable on the basis of Ext.P3 order and to undergo training in (Armed Battalion) SAP.

b) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to undergo training as Police Constable (Armed Battalion) SAP.

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

I find that relying on the above said decision relied on by the petitioner, a learned Judge of this Court has issued certain directions in a writ

petition filed by an identically situated person. But the training has already started on 11.10.2010. The learned Government Pleader admits that the

Commandant has authority to grant leave of absence upto 45 days for valid reasons. Accordingly, following that decision, this writ petition is

disposed of as follows:

The respondents shall permit the petitioner to attend the ensuing training after following the procedures prescribed thereof and other rules relating

to the same. For this purpose the Commandant shall consider whether the petitioner can be granted leave of absence exercising authority vested

with him. 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 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. It is also directed that 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 bond, along with others the petitioner shall also be

permitted to attend the training subject to the Commandant granting leave of absence for the period from 11.10.2010 till date of joining. The

petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the concerned Commandant for compliance.