A. ANILKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A select list of the year 2016 containing the names of State Police Service Officers of Kerala was prepared by the Selection Committee to fill up 13 substantive vacancies in the Kerala Cadre of Indian Police Service. The same was done in accordance with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The petitioner contends that he is next in line in the assessment for the select list and would have been selected for appointment by promotion had not the sixth respondent been included therein. The petitioner objects to the inclusion of the sixth respondent in the select list on the ground that he was placed under suspension in view of his involvement in a custodial death case. The sixth respondent was implicated in the criminal case on the allegation that he as superior police officer had given directions to manipulate the records to screen the culprits. The petitioner asserts that what is lacking in the sixth respondent is not only integrity but also continuous service of eight years in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner adds that the span of suspension for a period of about 1 1/2 years breaks the continuous service of the sixth respondent who ought not to have been included.

(2.) The respondents point out that the inclusion of the sixth respondent in the select list was inevitable notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal case as per the Regulations. The respondents contend that the criminal case is still pending and the sixth respondent though provisionally included was not selected for appointment by promotion. This is because the State Government has withheld the integrity certificate to the sixth respondent which is essential for him to be so considered for appointment. The respondents add that the meeting of the selection committee was held on 4.7.2018 and therefore the select list can remain in force only till 31st day of December, 2018. The respondents urge that the inclusion of the petitioner too in the assessment for the select list was only provisional and the appointment cannot be made after the select list has ceased to be in force.

(3.) We heard Mr O.V.Radhakrishnan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr P.Vijayakumar, Assistant Solicitor General, Mr Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Standing Counsel for the Union Public Service Commission, Mr P.N.Santhosh, Senior Government Pleader, Mr K.P.Satheesan, Senior Advocate for the sixth respondent and Mr S.Ramesh, Advocate as amicus curiae.