Candidates for disciplined forces have an absolute duty to disclose all criminal antecedents. Employers retain the authority to determine suitability based on character and integrity, and courts should generally not interfere at the interim stage unless the selection process is tainted by manifest arbitrariness or mala fide.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

1.The respondents in O.A.No.2101 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.P3 interim order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondent-applicant is included as Sl. No.24 in Annexure A2 ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of Police Constable (Armed Police Battalion) (KAP V) in Police Department in Idukki District, and was issued with Annexure A3 advice for appointment dated 01.11.2024.

2.1. The respondent pleads that he completed the medical examination successfully on 06.12.2024. On the date of the medical examination, a criminal case, as C.C.No.99 of 2018, was pending against the respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam, and the matter was entered by the respondent in the Police Verification Roll, given to the office of the 3^rd petitioner, Commandant, Kerala Armed Police 5^th Battalion, Kuttikanam, Idukki. Subsequently, the respondent was acquitted in that criminal case on 23.12.2024 by Annexure A5 judgment dated 23.12.2024 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kayamkulam. After the completion of the medical examination and police verification on the antecedents of the candidates included in Annexure A2 ranked list, the 3^rd petitioner published Annexure A6 list of eligible candidates dated 21.01.2025, to be appointed as Police Constable recruits, scheduling the date of commencement of training as 27.01.2025. But the name of the respondent was not included in the said list. Contending that Section 86(2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, states that a person against whom a criminal case for an offence involving proclivity of violence or moral turpitude pending before a court of law is entitled to appear for recruitment, to get selected and to undergo training, but shall be included for permanent appointment only after being acquitted, the respondent filed O.A.No.200 of 2025 before the Tribunal on 27.01.2025. In that original application, the Tribunal passed Annexure A7 order on 27.01.2025 itself, directing the 3^rd petitioner to include the respondent and other applicants in the connected cases, in the training to be commenced with respect to the new recruits, on a provisional basis, subject to the final decision with respect to their suitability for appointment. Based on the said order, the respondent joined as a Police Constable trainee under the 3^rd petitioner and completed training on 11.11.2025.

2.2. The respondent further states that on 20.11.2025, when he was on duty at the temple at Erumely, Kottayam, as deputed by the 3^rd petitioner, in connection with Sabarimala pilgrimage, at about 14.00 hours, the respondent was issued with Annexure A8 passport directing him to report before the AC Adjutant, KAP V, Maniyar, Pathanamthitta. When the respondent reported to KAP V on 20.11.2025, he was retrenched from service by issuing Annexure A9 order dated 19.11.2025 by the 3^rd petitioner, stating the reason that till date no suitability report/candidature clearance report has been received from the