Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

I. These matters are before the Division Bench on different reference orders by a learned single Judge. The first among them was issued on 11th April, 2011 in WP (C).No.11777 of 2011 noticing that different interlocutory orders were issued in writ jurisdiction permitting persons who were involved in criminal cases to undergo training on being selected as Police Constables. The reference is on the ground that such practice of issuing interim orders needs reconsideration on issues of law; the learned Judge who made the reference, having, apparently, disagreed with such practice and procedure.

II. Different interlocutory orders, including as directions, were issued pending the proceedings before the Division Bench, also focussing on the legal issue referred to the Division Bench.

III. On 21st June, 2011, it was directed that except in cases where any candidate has completed the period of training and has been permitted to discharge duties and responsibilities in the service, awaiting verification report as regards character and antecedents, all other candidates, in relation to whom there are indicators of criminal cases, including those who had been allowed to join training on the basis of the interim orders or otherwise, shall be discontinued and forthwith kept out of training for a period of six weeks. It was further directed that the State Government shall immediately ensure that verification of antecedents and character of all such candidates, including those who have already completed the training, is carried out without fail within a period of five weeks and action taken on the basis of such reports. It was further ordered that in the case of any candidate who may be found fit to continue after such verification, the training will stand extended by six weeks, however, without prejudice to his eligibility on the basis of the present entry for the purpose of regularisation. In issuing those directions, the Bench had deliberated, dealt with and held specifically on certain issues that arise for decision on the basis of the reference orders. It is, therefore, profitable to quote the following from that order dated 21st June, 2011:

"2. These cases relate to the recruitment of police constables. In almost all the cases, the respective candidate was not permitted to join duty or was not issued with appointment order on the premise that he was involved in criminal cases and that his antecedents were not above board going by the materials available with the competent authority. Indisputably, no order has been issued by the competent authority under Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, holding that the Government is satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. A proviso to that clause enjoins that the appointing authority may, in anticipation of such decision, appoint the person temporarily on condition that the appointment shall be terminated without notice, if the Government are satisfied that his character and antecedents on subsequent verification are found not satisfactory. Note 2 under that clause provides that the appointing authorities shall get the necessary details for verification of character and antecedents of the candidates advised by the Commission from the candidates themselves before they are allowed to join duty and the appointing authorities shall obtain the reports on the verification of character and antecedents so advised, within a period not exceeding six months from the date of joining duty of the candidates. This, obviously, enjoins a duty on the appointing authority to ensure that report regarding the verification of character and antecedents cannot be indefinitely dragged on. We say this in the context of cases where admittedly no report has been obtained in the case of any of these writ petitioners.

3. On the strength of the advise by the Public Service Commission an