S. SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that these two petitioners were appointed to the post of Finger Print Searchers working under the Department by virtue of an order dated 20.01.2010. It is also not in dispute that the Special Rules governing the qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Finger Print Searcher at Finger Print Bureau provided the procedure how the assessment of merit is to be considered. The method of appointment to the post of Finger Print Searcher, which is at category No.2, is by direct recruitment and also transfer from among the members of the Ministerial Subordinate Service employed in the Police Department at the ratio of 1:1. It is also not in dispute, though the basic qualification is BA or B.Sc, Science Graduates are preferred. The period of probation is two years within a continuous period of three years. It is also not in dispute that a mandatory training has to be undergone by the persons who are appointed to the post of Finger Print Searchers either by direct recruitment or by transfer. According to the petitioners/applicants, after completing the successful training and clearing the examination held after the training, as evident from Ext.P6 dated 14.9.2010, nothing else need to be done on their part except to report for duty at the place shown against their names at Ext.P6. But a special test came to be conducted by the respondents for all the ten candidates shown at Ext.P6 and without understanding the complications or consequences of the result of the test, they appeared for the test and they failed in the said test. Though second test was held, they did not appear for the second test after 14.9.2010. A representation was given seeking declaration of probation, which came to be rejected and the same came to be challenged in the O.A.

(3.) SO far as the contention of the petitioners before this Court, Exts.P3, P4 and P5 indicate the syllabus and subjects for which tests were conducted before completion of the training period. Learned counsel contends, almost on the verge of completion of training on 19.8.2010, a test was conducted on 17.8.2010. This is the prescribed test according to the counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, having declared as successful in the prescribed test at Ext.P6, there is no justification to subject them to another test. The stand of the first respondent State is altogether different before this Court. In other words, the statement of objection filed before the Tribunal does not indicate what exactly is the stand in so many words. Therefore, this Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit clarifying the position along with the documents. In pursuance of the same, they have filed a detailed counter affidavit, of which paragraphs 5 to 10 are relevant, which read as under:-