The has officially disposed of a that sought a court-monitored into the controversial recruitment of two bodybuilders, Chitharesh Natesan and Shinu Chovva, as Armed Police Inspectors within the state force. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, observed that the state authorities had already issued a denying the required under , to initiate a formal vigilance investigation. Given that this denial is a recent administrative development and the petitioner had not moved to formally challenge the legality of that specific order within the current , the court opted to dispose of the case while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue further against the rejection.
The controversy centers on the Cabinet decision from to appoint the two bodybuilders by creating two in the . While the government justified the appointments as a special recognition of the individuals' significant international achievements in bodybuilding, the move faced intense backlash and multiple legal challenges. Critics, including the petitioner, , argued that the appointments flagrantly bypassed the .
Specific allegations highlighted by the petitioner suggested that the recruitment process failed to meet mandatory physical and educational standards. For instance, reports submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government revealed that Chitharesh Natesan did not attend the mandatory National Physical Efficiency One Star Standard Test, while Shinu Chovva attempted the test but failed to qualify in half of the eight required events. Further complicating the matter, a medical examination conducted in declared Natesan unfit for police service due to a condition identified as "flat foot," which is explicitly listed as a disqualification factor under the existing Special Rules.
Regulatory Breaches and Administrative Hurdles
The petition alleged that the administrative decision-making process was deeply flawed, involving improper influence and the deliberate overriding of standing regulations to accommodate the candidates. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the inclusion of bodybuilding—a discipline based on subjective aesthetic judging—did not fit into the established categories of athletics or games recognized for state employment under the .
In response to the allegations, the state, represented by the , maintained that the appointments were an exercise of for exceptional talent. However, the internal records produced before the court confirmed that the training of both candidates was eventually halted in following a change in government and an influx of public complaints. The state government stated that it is currently in the process of re-examining the original cabinet decision to determine if the recruitment met legal and departmental benchmarks.
The legal arguments focused heavily on the interpretation of . The petitioner relied on the precedent set in
, arguing that
"the approval as provided under Section 17A comes into play only when the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision take by a public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties."
The petitioner further contended that the acts involved in the appointments were so clearly contrary to existing statutes that they should be treated as actions falling outside the protection of Section 17A.
Essential Judicial Interpretations
Throughout the proceedings, the court issued multiple aimed at ensuring transparency and compliance. A pivotal moment occurred when the government finally filed a enclosing a formal order that explicitly rejected the grant of for a vigilance probe. The court’s final assessment underscored that without a direct challenge to this rejection order, the court could not bypass the imposed by the Anti-Corruption law.
Reflecting on the nature of the alleged misconduct, the court recalled the principle established in
, noting:
"If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a
to obtain an undue
will not be correct."
This interpretation formed the basis for the court's cautious approach, emphasizing that mere in a government appointment does not automatically equate to under the . The court clarified that proving an underlying "" is a vital threshold that must be met to sustain such allegations.
Current Procedural Standing
With the now disposed of, the immediate future of the appointment files remains in the hands of the administrative authorities. The government is currently reviewing the cabinet-level decision, and the two candidates remain without formal appointment or active training within the police force.
The court has explicitly preserved the rights of the petitioner and any other interested parties to file a new, separate legal challenge specifically targeting the , that denied the Section 17A approval. By channeling the dispute into this specific legal pathway, the has effectively concluded the present phase of the litigation, leaving the question of whether a is warranted to be decided through a challenge to the government's refusal to grant sanction. No further directives were issued regarding the personnel involved, as the court prioritized the adherence to established legal procedures regarding anti-corruption oversight.
government-appointments - vigilance-inquiry
