Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In the nature of the issues which have been raised for consideration and in the nature of the submissions made, I do not think it is necessary to undertake a detailed appraisal of the facts in each one of these cases. But, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.33572/2007.

2. The petitioner, on retirement from the Army, registered his name in the Employment Exchange. He was selected for appointment to the post of Police Constable Driver on the basis of advice by the third respondent and was called for medical examination. He reported for the same. But subsequently, he came to know that other persons, who attended the medical examination, were issued orders of appointment, but he was not included therein. He came to know that his non inclusion is on account of the pendency of C.C.No.143/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I Kochi, involving offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC read with Section 181 of the M.V.Act Petitioner contends that mere pendency of the criminal case should not stand in the way of the petitioner being offered appointment. He has therefore, approached this Court praying for a direction that he should be sent for training as Police Constable pursuant to Ext.P1, which is the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police provisionally selecting him for appointment to the post of Driver PC, subject to verification of character and antecedents. An interim order was passed by this Court on 111.2007, requiring the petitioner to be sent for training subject to the conditions prescribed therein.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents pointing out that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.143/2007 and this was considered by the Government as making him unfit for appointment in Government service. “Appointing an individual, who is involved in a criminal case or who has a criminal background, will affect the morale of the police force.” Petitioner is undergoing training pursuant to the interim order of this Court.

4. Similar facts are involved in the other cases also. The variation is in relation to the post or the nature of the offences charged against those petitioners. in all these cases, the stand taken by the Government is to the effect that the petitioners have not been deputed for training because of the pendency of the criminal case in question.

5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Waheeda Babu, Mr. Bechu Kurian Thomas, Mr. Kaliswaram Raj, Mr. Mohanlal, Mr. Anilkumar, Mr. T.A. Shaji, Mr. Pirappancode Sudheer and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. Nandakumar.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that mere pendency of the criminal cases, as such, should not be treated as a blemish on the character and antecedents of any person, who is otherwise fit for appointment to a post in the Civil Services. The criminal cases could be registered for oblique reasons. A person may find himself as an accused in a criminal case out of political vendetta or out of sheer, error committed by the investigating agency. He could also find himself as an accused on account of pure and simple domestic strife, a typical illustration of which could be found in Writ Petition No.5131/2007, where the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in an FIR which came to be registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the sister-in-law of the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC against her husband and mother-in-law, as accused Nos.1 and 2. The fact that the person, who is arrayed as an accused in a criminal case, which could even be, at the stage of investigation, casts no reflection on the character or antecedents of the person concerned. In all probabilities, he might be acquitted, but if the pendency of the criminal case is taken as a reason t