SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MY innate sense of justice dissuades me from dismissing this petition on a rigid interpretation of Ext.P3.I feel that the qualification prescribed under Ext.P3 should be considered in a reasonable manner so that it advances justice and not defeat it.

(2.) THE petitioner is at present working as a Police Constable,he was appointed with effect from 31st July 1978.He had to undergo Basic Police Training for a period of 9 months in the Police Training College and thereafter 6 months Practical Training in Local Police Station.The petitioner successfully completed the training on 7th May 1979 and was placed on probation.The petitioner will complete the period of probation by 8th May 1981.

(3.) EXT .P3 lays down the qualifications for a police constable.It reads thus: "The Gore Committee on Police Training has recommended that High School examination,or its equivalent may be prescribed as minimum educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Police Constables in all branches.Likewise the committee on estimates(1973 -74)in their 16th report have also recommended to revise the educational qualifications as S.S.L.C. Government have examined the recommendation in all its aspects.They also examined in these context the question of giving certain concessions to the constabulary and they are pleased to issue the following orders: - 1.Minimum educational qualification for recruitment to the Constabulary(Local Police,Armed Reserved,Armed Police,Battalion)will be S.S.L.C.standard,i.e .,study upto that standard(whether passed or failed)instead of the present one 'study upto VII Class Malayalam or Old Form III ' ;.In the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates the present educational qualifications will continue to be in force. (emphasis supplied)" Ext.P3 was in existence when the petitioner was selected which meant that at the time of his appointment the authorities felt that he satisfied the requisite qualification.This is evident also from Para.2 and 3 of the counter affidavit,which reads: "2.As per G.O.Ms.119/76/Home,dated 9th September 1976(Marked as Ext.P3 ),the educational qualification for the recruitment of Police Constables was 'S.S.L.C.standard i.e .,studied upto that standard(whether passed or failed)' ;.During the recruitment of Police Constables in Kottayam District in 1978 petitioner was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange.It was seen that he had not appeared for the S.S.L.C.Examination but had only been presented for that examination.A doubt therefore arose whether he can be selected for the post.Government at first clarified on 20th July 1978 that if a candidate had completed the course by minimum attendance he will be deemed to have attained S.S.L.C.standard.Government subsequently examined the matter further in detail and directed the Inspector General of Police on 3rd November 1979 to terminate the training of the petitioner and discharge him forthwith.By that time petitioner completed the training.Superintendent of Police,Kottayam by his Order No.A2 -6329/78K,dated 9th November 1979 discharged the petitioner from service with immediate effect.Petitioner did not accept this order but entered on sick leave from 9th November 1979 onwards and filed this O.P. 3.It is true that a doubt arose whether the petitioner who has only been presented for the S.S.L.C.Examination but did not appear for that examination can be selected for the post of Police Constable Petitioner's representation,dated 5th May 1978(Ext.P2)was also considered by Government and it was clarified that if a candidate had completed the course by attaining minimum attendance he will be deemed to have attained S.S.L.C.standard." From the above averments in the counter affidavit it is clear that at sometime there was doubt as to whether a person who was only presented for the S.S.L.C.Examination could be appointed as a Police Constable.On 20th July 1978 government clarified that a minimum attendance and a completion of course were sufficient.It was on subsequent examination that it was found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification.