The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of impeccable character and integrity for candidates in the police force and the impact of criminal antecedents, even if acquitted or discharged, on their suitability for appointment.

JUDGMENT

Bharati H. Dangre, J. - "We are products of our past, but we don't have to be prisoners of it".

What Rick Warren, a Christian pastor said, may not hold true in all circumstances and the present case before us, is one such circumstance.

On being dejected by his non-selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in Goa Police from the category of Children of Freedom Fighters on the ground that 3 criminal cases are registered against him and in ignorance of his acquittal in all these cases, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He seek a relief of revoking the impugned letter communicating him the decision of his non-selection and seek a mandatory direction to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also pray for quashing and setting aside the appointment order in favour of respondents no.5, 6 and 7 to the post of Police Sub-Inspector of Goa Police since, it is the case of the petitioner that, in the similar circumstances the appointment orders have been issued in their favour. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ryan Menezes state that he is instructed not to press prayer clause (aa) to the petition.

2. On 24.08.2012, the Goa Police Department issued an advertisement in local daily newspapers and also on its website inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- alongwith the permissible allowances. Total 105 posts were advertised which included two posts reserved for the Children of Freedom Fighters. The advertisement set out the essential qualifications both educational as well as the physical parameters and contemplate undergoing of physical efficiency test which was a qualifying criteria for selection.

3. The petitioner, being qualified as per the essential qualifications of the advertisement, filed his application from the category of ward of Freedom Fighters since his father has been a freedom fighter during Goa struggle for liberation. For the said category, age relaxation of 5 years was permissible. Since the petitioner met with the prescribed requisite parameters he was allowed to participate in the selection process and received a call letter for verification of his documents and undergoing the physical efficiency test. Since he met the necessary requirements and also cleared the physical efficiency test, he was permitted to appear for the written examination and was called for an oral interview at Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa. On the process being completed, on 20.01.2013 the select list of candidates was published and the name of the petitioner featured in the said list from the category of Children of Freedom Fighter. By memorandum dated 23.09.2013, an offer letter for appointment as Police Sub-Inspector was issued to the petitioner which was however subject to verification and genuineness of the certificates produced by the candidate regarding his educational qualifications, age, caste, category, etc.

4. The petition state that when 87 selected candidates were directed to report for training by letter dated 25.10.2013 and even one contemporary of the petitioner came to be appointed against one post reserved for Children of Freedom Fighters, the petitioner was not issued an order of appointment and he was eagerly awaiting in anticipation for the order of appointment. Pertinent to note that the character verification of the candidates who were offered letter of appointment was a part of the selection process and by letter dated 30.09.2013, a reference was sought qua the petitioner to the effect that in view of the past criminal cases where the petitioner was discharged/acquitted, whether he can be considered for appointment. The 3 criminal cases were referred against the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, refer to heap of correspondence made by him as well as his father by making repe