Per : Honble B.C. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)

Being aggrieved by an order made by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 399/1996 decided on 07.08.1998 dismissing the petition, the present appeal is preferred.

2. The facts in nutshell, which are relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as under :-

For the posts of driver (constable) process was commenced by the recruitment Board for selecting suitable candidates. The Board approved a panel of candidates for enrolment against the said posts. Out of 19 candidates selected, the petitioner was at Sr. No. 18. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, vide his communication dated 21.07.1995 called for the information, so as to enable him to judge the character and antecedents of the appellants, from all the Station House Officers and Senior Divisional Police Officers. After perusing the report, it was found fit not to appoint the appellant as Constable (driver). Against the non-appointment, a petition was filed by the appellant, which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is not disputed that the original petitioner was enlisted in the select list. So far as the right of appointment of the appellant is concerned, before the writ court, provisions containing the rules and precedents were cited to point out that the person who is enlisted has no right of appointment.

3. It was pointed out to the learned Single Judge that during the course of verification, it was noticed that the petitioner had links with Anti-national elements and had got involved in militancy related activities, so much so, that he was required to be arrested by the Security forces in Dec., 1991. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was detained under the provisions contained under Public Safety Act for a period of one year on account of his prejudicial activities threatening the security of the State vide order dated 26.10 1992. It was also pointed out to the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was required in two criminal cases numbered as FIR No. 18/1992 and FIR No. 18/1993. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner, though selected for appointment, his appointment, which was required to be made, was subject to verification of his character and antecedents and as it was found that he was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the state and was involved in criminal offences, he was not given the letter of appointment.

4. Rules known as Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 applies to all servants. Rule 17 refers to verification. Clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 17 read as under :-

"17. Qualifications -No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless -- (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) he satisfies the appointing authority that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; and (d) he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.

5. Thus, reading Clause (d), it is very clear that the appointing authority must be satisfied about the character and antecedents of the person who is to be appointed. On this aspect Mr. Qadri, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, pointed out that it is for the authority to consider the character and antecedents of the person concerned. According to him, mere involvement in serious crimes is more than sufficient for not appointing the persons in the police Department who are required to look after the security of the State and are required to investigate the crimes or are required with the police force. He submitted that if the authority, appointing the person, is satisfied that the character and antecedents are such that it would disqualify the person, and if a decision is taken, then it is not for the court to sit in appeal over the decision. He further submitted that it is not for the cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document