DASSAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-1963-12-7
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on December 02,1963

DASSAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KALLURI VASAYYA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES KHAMMAM DIVISION KHAMMAM AND POSTMASTER GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1980-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. A K ROY [LAWS(ORI)-1969-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
P KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1964-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. BALAN [LAWS(KER)-1978-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. BALAN [LAWS(KER)-1978-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
JAI CHAND SHARMA VS. CHIEF ENGINEER [LAWS(J&K)-1973-10-14] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner was selected for recruitment as a peon by the Public Service Commission. THE memorandum in that behalf is Ext. P2 dated 27-5-1961.
(2.)THE order of appointment is Ext. P-3 dated 27-7-1961. It says that the petitioner "is provisionally appointed as Peon in that office of the Sales Tax Officer, Manantoddy. "
Ext. P-3 covers the appointment of some other candidates as well. The provisional character of all the appointments is again emphasised in the last sentence of the order. It says that the candidates are informed "that their appointments are purely provisional. "

The orders impugned in the petition are Ext. P4 dated 3-10-1961 and Ext. P5 dated 15-3-1962. Ext. P-4 refers to Ext. P-3, mentions the fact that the petitioner "was provisionally appointed as Peon in the office of the Sales Tax Officer, Manantoddy" and says: "the provisional appointment made cannot be absolute and hence the individual is informed that his service will be terminated from this Department with effect from the afternoon of 31-10-1961. "

(3.)THE affidavit on behalf of the State dated 27-8-'63 says: "on verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner through the prescribed channels it was found that he was not suitable for appointment to Government Service. THE petitioner's services which were merely provisional were therefore terminated by the respondent. " THEre is a further affidavit on behalf of the State, an affidavit affirmed by the Home Secretary on 16-11-1963. That affidavit says: "the Government's conclusion in regard to the petitioner's character and antecedents was based upon the report of the Deputy inspector General of Police, C. I. D. and Railways, Trivandrnm. THE petitioner's allegation that irrelevant and extraneous considerations have weighed with the government in coming to its conclusion on the character and antecedents of the petitioner are incorrect and devoid of any factual foundation. THE Government have the right to satisfy themselves about the suitability of a candidate with reference to his character and antecedents before entertaining him into its service. It is permissible for the Government to eschew a person from Public Service on grounds that he is likely to be disloyal or to abuse the confidence which will have to be reposed in him by virtue of the appointment. "
The first contention of the petitioner is that there has been a violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution which provides that "there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. " The right of the State to verify the character and antecedents of the petitioner is not disputed. The submission is that the conduct of the verification was not proper and that the conclusion reached was based on extraneous considerations.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.