MANSARUDEEN Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-petitioner filed the Original petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to appoint him as Cashier in the service of the 1st respondent, Kerala State Electricity board, after quashing Ext. P8 direction of the 3rd respondent refusing to admit him to duty. THE learned single judge dismissed the petition. This appeal is directed against that judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Science Graduate belonging to other backward community (Muslim ). He was advised for recruitment as junior assistant/cashier in the K. S. E. B. by the Kerala Public Service Com mission. Copy of the advice dated 20-4-1992 in produced as Ext. P1 Subsequent to the advice an order of appointment dated 29-6-1992 was issued to him, copy of which is marked as Ext. P2. As per Ext. P2 he was asked to report for duty before the executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Thrissur-West within 15 days of the receipt of the order. THE petitioner appeared before the Executive Engineer on 17-7-1992. As per clause 7 of Ext. P2 order he also produced security deposit receipt for Rs. 1,000/ -. Copy of the receipt dated 17-7-1992 is marked as Ext. P3. He had to fill up a proforma before joining service. While filling the proforma the petitioner stated that he has been implicated in two criminal cases along with other close relatives. THE numbers of the cases were also mentioned in the proforma. THE Executive Engineer by his letter dated 21-7-1992 (Ext. P8)informed the petitioner that he could not be admitted for duty in view of the pendency of the criminal cases. He was also informed that 'the matter has been taken up with the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle , Thrissur, for further directions'. THE Deputy Chief Engineer in his turn requested for further instruction from the Chief Engineer by his letter dated 21-7-1992. Copy of that letter is produced as Ext. P9. THEreafter the petitioner was not informed about the decision of the Chief Engineer. THE Original Petition was accordingly filed on 14-8-1992 for the above-mentioned relief's.

(3.) THE background under which these criminal cases arose has been explained by the petitioner in the Original Petition. According to the petitioner the adjoining property owners of his uncle's properly were attempting to trespass into his property. Petitioner's uncle had filed two suits, one suit which was filed in the Munsiff court was transferred to the Sub Court and renumbered as O. S. No. 551 of 1991 and the other suit was O. S. No. 77 of 1990, for injunction restraining them from trespassing into his property. Interim injunction was ordered by the Civil Court. In violation of the injunction order the neighbours trespassed into the property and caused bodily injury to the petitioner's uncle, father and his close relatives about which criminal cases were registered against the neighbours at the instance of the petitioner's uncle and father. However, since the neighbours belonged to the ruling political party at that time the police were shielding the wrong doers. So also at the instance of the neighbours criminal complaints were being filed against the members of the petitioner's family. THErefore the petitioner's uncle was forced to file O. P. No. 1928 of 1990 before this Court for getting police protection against these neighbours. This Court by Ext. P7 judgment ordered police protection. In paragraphs, of that judgment this Court found that even after injunction the neighbours were trying to trespass into the property and committing waste and that police protection was not forthcoming evenlhough they prayed for the same. THErefore the allegation of the petitioner is that the two criminal cases pending against him arc foisted by the police since they were unhappy about the judgment of this Court to grant police protection to the petitioner's family members. It is also alleged that the local Circle Inspector wanted petitioner's uncle to sell his property for a paltry sum to his neighbours. His refusal to accept that request further infuriated the police. We stated these facts only to explain the stand of the petitioner. It may or may not be true. But the main aspect to be noticed is that according to the petitioner he is not at all guilty and he is liable to be acquitted in the criminal case. As an example he produced Ext. P6 judgment in another criminal case against him and others. In that judgment the Sessions Court, Kollam, acquitted the petitioner and others. In para. 13 of that judgment the learned Sessions Judge noticed that there were several criminal and civil cases pending against the parties and that the chance of foisting a false case cannot be ruled out.