Individuals with pending criminal cases involving moral turpitude or violence may be provisionally selected for training in disciplined services, but permanent appointment depends on acquittal and satisfactory verification of character and antecedents. Courts will not interfere with interim administrative decisions unless they are perverse or arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

1.The respondents in O.A.No.2164 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (‘the Tribunal’ for short), have filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 interim order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondent-applicant is included in the ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of Police Constable (Armed Police Battalion) in KAP-1 Battalion in the Police Department in Ernakulam District and was issued with Annexure A1 advice for appointment dated 26.10.2024 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, District Office Ernakulam.

2.1. The respondent pleads that at the time of advice, a criminal case was pending against him, registered at Haripad Police Station as crime No.715/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC. When the petitioners declined to permit the respondent to participate in the training on the ground of pendency of the said criminal case, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.(EKM)No.1695 of 2024. The Additional Bench of the Tribunal at Ernakulam, by Annexure A3 interim order dated 20.12.2024, permitted the respondent to undergo training, and on the strength of the said order, the respondent was sent for police constable training. 2.2. It is further pleaded in the original application that the criminal case registered against the respondent is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad, as CC No.137 of 2024. The respondent is falsely implicated in the said crime. Now, a bailable warrant was issued to the de facto complainant by the Magistrate's Court, since he did not appear for evidence on receipt of summons.

2.3. Pursuant to Annexure A3 order, the respondent was inducted into training and on completing the same, he was deputed for Sabarimala duty. The respondent performed Sabarimala duty till 25.11.2025 and thereafter rejoined the battalion. While he was continuing in service, he was served with Annexure A5 proceedings dated 05.12.2025 issued by the Commandant, KAP-1 Battalion, ordering his temporary retrenchment from service with effect from 16.11.2025, citing non-receipt of Government clearance regarding verification of character and antecedents. Therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2164 of 2025 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To set aside Annexure A5 order.

ii. To declare that the Applicant is entitled to provisional appointment as Police Constable in KAP-I Battalion under Section 86(2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

iii. To direct the respondents to provisionally appoint/reinstate the Applicant as Police Constable in KAP-1 Battalion.”

3. On 19.12.2025, when the original application came up for consideration along with O.A.No.2101 of 2025, the Tribunal passed the impugned Ext.P2 interim order, which read thus:

“Admit.

Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. In view of section 86(2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2010, there shall be a direction to the respondents to readmit the applicants to duty within two days. It will be provisional and subject to verification of antecedents and discipline of the applicant.”

4. Being aggrieved, the respondents in the original application approached this Court with this original petition.

5. On 27.01.2026, when this original petition came up for admission, this Co