ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters are before the Division Bench on different reference orders by a learned single Judge. The first among them was issued on 11th April, 2011 in W. P. (C) No. 11777 of 2011 noticing that different interlocutory orders were issued in writ jurisdiction permitting persons who were involved in criminal cases to undergo training on being selected as Police Constables. The reference is on the ground that such practice of issuing interim orders needs reconsideration on issues of law; the learned Judge who made the reference, having, apparently, disagreed with such practice and procedure. Different interlocutory orders, including as directions, were issued pending the proceedings before the Division Bench, also focussing on the legal issue referred to the Division Bench.

(2.) On 21st June, 2011, it was directed that except in cases where any candidate has completed the period of training and has been permitted to discharge duties and responsibilities in the service, awaiting verification report as regards character and antecedents, all other candidates, in relation to whom there are indicators of criminal cases, including those who had been allowed to join training on the basis of the interim orders or otherwise, shall be discontinued and forthwith kept out of training for a period of six weeks. It was further directed that the State Government shall immediately ensure that verification of antecedents and character of all such candidates, including those who have already completed the training, is carried out without fail within a period of five weeks and action taken on the basis of such reports. It was further ordered that in the case of any candidate who may be found fit to continue after such verification, the training will stand extended by six weeks, however, without prejudice to his eligibility on the basis of the present entry for the purpose of regularisation. In issuing those directions, the Bench had deliberated, dealt with and held specifically on certain issues that arise for decision on the basis of the reference orders. It is, therefore, profitable to quote the following from that order dated 21st June, 2011:

(3.) Holding as aforesaid, the Bench noted that the concept of predecisional hearing before terminating the continuance of a particular person who has been taken in on the basis of the proviso to Rule 10 (b) (iii) requires further consideration since prima facie, the Bench was of the view that the precedent Suresh v. Public Service Commission, 2008 2 KerLT 441 needs reconsideration.