IMPORTANT POINT
Character assessments for public employment must consider socio-economic context and reformative potential, rather than solely past criminal involvement, to promote substantive equality.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. The petitioner, Shri Jijin R., belongs to the Ezhava community, a backward community. His mother, Smt. Radha N., was a part-time sweeper in the Police Department. Radha passed away on 03/11/2017 while she was in the service. Jijin was offered a job as a Driver (Police Constable) under the compassionate employment scheme. The family satisfies the eligibility criteria for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. Jijin did not possess a clean image and was involved in criminal cases. Jijin is now stated to be 37 years old. He has been involved in criminal cases since 2012. He has faced many hurdles in life, including involvement in criminal cases. He was able to walk free on payment of a fine in one case and suffered a day’s imprisonment and fine in another. In three cases, he was acquitted. The last case involved a matrimonial dispute and ended in a compromise. Jijin studied only up to SSLC. He had no access to the portals and corridors of higher learning, like many who belong to the lower strata. He had no dream about his future. His wandering mind endured the circumstances of life, and all were seen as part of his destiny. He never thought that he would have a chance to improve until the moment came in the form of an opportunity that knocked at his door, consequent upon the death of his beloved mother. He thought his destiny would mark another chapter in his life. But it was not so. The Law became a barrier for him. Opportunity, a fleeting concept in chaos, seemed stuck, taunting him with its elusiveness. He was unsuccessful before the Tribunal, as the law did not side with him. Law characterised him as a man of ill-repute, a bad and condemnable person, forever in pursuit of public employment. He seems to have a belief that howling tempest would dampen his hopes, yet he pressed on, pinning hope on this court, driven by determination, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. For the Government, in law, he committed two sins.

i. Involvement in criminal offences.

ii. Non-disclosure of involvement in criminal offences.

3. We are in this case called upon to decide on justice by balancing law and fate, and the dream of a poor man who belongs to a backward community. However, to do so, justice must be weighed on a balancing scale.

4. As unfolded above, he was involved in the following cases:

He also failed to disclose, in the verification roll dated 22/02/2022, his involvement in the aforementioned criminal offences.

5. The character of an individual considered for a public service appointment is of paramount importance to uphold public confidence in the integrity and image of the civil service. The Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR) in general, prescribes that the State Government must be satisfied with the character and antecedents of a person to qualify him for such service {See Rule 10(b)(iii) of KS&SSR}. Similar provisions are found in the Kerala Police Act, 2011, prescribing disqualification for appointment as a Police Officer. While KS&SSR prescribes disqualification on general terms as to character, the Kerala Police Act, 2011, enumerates the circumstances in which such a person would be considered as disqualified. In the Kerala Police Act, 2011, it is stipulated that a person involved in a criminal offence