IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6384 of 2008(I)
1. SIBY GEORGE, ASI OF POLICE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :29/07/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).6384/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the
year 1987. While working as ASI in the District Armed
Reserve, he applied for appointment to the post of Sub
Inspector of Police Trainee (General Executive) in the
Kerala Police. He passed the written test and physical
efficiency test and was included in the rank list, but was
not appointed due to lack of vacancies.
2. Thereafter, the PSC initiated proceedings for
appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police Trainee,
General Executive Branch. Petitioner applied for the
same. He was successful in the written test. But when the
physical efficiency test was conducted, he could pass only
four out of the total eight items. Petitioner then moved
the Government by Ext.P2 representation seeking to
invoke the powers of the Government under Rule 39 of
Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. In Writ Petition No.2691/2006
filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the
W.P.(C).6384/2008
2
respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of
Police Trainee (General Executive), petitioner further
pointed out that in a similar case involving one Sri. John,
Government had invoked its power under Rule 39 and
directed that he be appointed in spite of the fact that he
had not passed the physical efficiency test. Government
in Ext.P6 counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition
No.2691/2006 took the stand that John’s case was
considered as a special case because he had been
included in the rank list of Armed Police Sub Inspector
(AP Battalion) and the physical fitness was such that
he could pass the physical efficiency test for the post in
question. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of
directing the Government to consider the petitioner’s
representation. The matter was considered by the
Government and this led to Ext.P10 order.
Government, while considering the petitioner’s
contention that he has been subjected to hostile
discrimination vis-a vis Sri.John, found that John was
actually included in the rank list of APSI of Police ( AP
W.P.(C).6384/2008
3
Battalion) as he has passed the written test and five out
of eight items in the physical efficiency test for the post
of SI of Police (AP Battalion). On this premise,
petitioner’s claim came to be rejected. Ext.P10 order
passed in this regard and subsequent order passed by
the Government as Ext.P13, which was on application
for review filed by the petitioner himself, have been
challenged in this writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second
respondent. Essentially it has been demonstrated in the
counter affidavit that John was actually included in the
list of SI of Police (AP Battalion) and therefore, while
invoking its power under Rule 39 in relation to John,
Government had material on the basis of which it could
justify its exercise of power. Case of the petitioner
stands on a different footing. Therefore, even in the
context of invoking powers of the Government under
Rule 39, petitioner cannot be legitimately plead a case
of hostile discrimination.
W.P.(C).6384/2008
4
4. There is force in the above submission made on
behalf of the respondents. Apart from the above, this
Court cannot compell the Government to necessarily
invoke its power under Rule 39 of Part-II of K.S. &
S.S.R. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in
the stand taken by the Government either in Exts.P10 or
P13. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence
dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs