K.V. Eapen, Member A
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the denial of appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator under the Fire Protection and Control in the Police
Department, UT of Lakshadweep, despite the fact that he was selected at serial No. 13 of the Select List and the numbers of vacancies to be filled up
are 50. Annexure A10 is the impugned order whereby the appointment of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that he has been implicated as
accused No. 5 in Crime No. 4/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 457, 427, 323, 506(ii), read with 149 IPC and 3(i) of PDPP
Act. He however, submits that he was acquitted by judgment of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini. He submits that merely
because he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal case, employment cannot be denied to him. He submitted that it is evident from Annexures A4
and A5 that the respondents themselves have made appointments in similar circumstances subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. The
applicant has thus filed this OA seeking relief to set aside Annexure A10 and direct the respondents to give him appointment to the post of
Fireman/Driver Operator.
2. Respondents have filed a reply statement contending that the recruitment process comprised police verification as well. During the police
verification it had been revealed that the applicant was an accused in Crime No. 4/2012 (CC No. 6/2013) under Sections 143, 147, 427, 457, 323,
506(ii) read with 149 IPC and 3(1) of PDPP Act and that the case was registered in Amini Police Station. Therefore, the respondents acting upon the
clause contained in Annexure A2 Select List, kept the selection of the applicant pending final decision on the eligibility of the applicant as per rules.
The applicant was aware of the pendency of the criminal case against him but had willfully refused to furnish the particulars of the criminal case.
Further, the respondents submitted that the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini as per judgment dated 19.6.2017 in Crime No. 4/2012
(CC No. 6/2013) has acquitted the applicant from all the criminal charges alleged against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. The applicant had
approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 605 of 2018 alleging non-consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator
despite acquittal in the criminal case pending against him. This Tribunal at that time disposed of the OA as per Annexure A9 order with a direction to
the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 6.11.2017 and 28.3.2018 submitted by the applicant. Accordingly,
the respondents, in compliance, constituted a Screening Committee to examine the case of the applicant. The Screening Committee in its meeting held
on 10.9.2018 had found that the acquittal of the applicant was not an honourable acquittal and that there was a serious charge against the applicant for
assaulting a police officer. Hence, the Screening Committee had unanimously decided not to recommend the applicant for appointment to the post of
Fireman/Driver Operator. Accordingly, Annexure A10 order dated 21.9.2018 was issued by the respondents rejecting the candidature of the applicant.
3. The respondents submit that it is settled law that mere acquittal in a criminal case will not confer any indefeasible right for appointment. It is the
prerogative of the employer to examine the eligibility of the candidate for appointment to the post. The employer has to take the decision in
accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of the applicant the allegations were quite grave and the acquittal was not
honourable. It is submitted that the applicant is not similarly placed as that of the candidates covered under Annexures A4 and A5. The respondents
submitted that Annexure A10 order was passed after following a fair and transparent process. The respondents had not given any promise either
explicit or implied to the applicant assuring his appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator in the Lakshadweep Fire Department. Thus, the
applicant cannot claim the benefit of legitimate expectation and the respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA.
4. We have heard Mr. R. Rohit, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mrs. Sreekala K.L., learned counsel appearing for the respondents at
length. Perused the records.
5. We are of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondents that mere acquittal in a criminal case will not confer any indefeasible right for
appointment, is the right one, as per law. It is the prerogative of the employer to examine the eligibility of the candidate for appointment to a post. The
employer has to take the decision in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of the applicant the allegations were quite
grave and the acquittal was not honourable. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini as per judgment dated 19.6.2017 in Crime No.
4/2012 (CC No. 6/2013) had held under:
“26. Thus on a careful consideration of the evidence in its entirety and from the above discussion, I am of the view that the accused
themselves have not formed into unlawful assembly, caused luring trespass in to the Government Quarters were the defacto complainant
resides and there is no conclusive proof that the material objects which are recovered from the place of occurrence are the articles under
the ownership of the State. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is not clear that the accused were committed the offences as stated by the
prosecution. Also, the circumstances injected by the prosecution provides unhelpful and ambiguity regarding the evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is very much difficult ot overlook the cooked up story by the prosecution without any suspicious eye that
entire story leveled against the accused by the Police is true and with veracity. To conclude, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused unlawfully assembled, caused riot, lurking trespass, mischief, assault and criminal intimidation etc. The
prosecution has failed to prove its cases beyond reasonable doubt it is obvious that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused,
I do so. Hence, the accused are not guilty of any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The above points, accordingly, are found answered
against the prosecution.â€
6. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 26 quoted above that the prosecution has failed to prove its cases beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
found that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. We find that the Screening Committee had gone into all these matters and after
scrutinizing the case details of the applicant including the relevant documents found that the acquittal of the applicant was not honourable. They
unanimously decided not to recommend the applicant for appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator. We also find that the appointments
made as per Annexures A4 and A5 orders were conditional appointments. In the case of the applicant the respondents had kept one post vacant till
the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In the matter of fresh appointments the respondents have to be satisfied that the
applicant fits the bill on all grounds including the matter of previous behavior, etc. In this matter it appears that for the sensitive post of Fireman/Driver
Operator, they have taken a decision to recruit candidates with a proper track record. They have decided that the applicant does not measure up to
this owing to his involvement in the case where he was let off giving the benefit of the doubt. For fresh appointments, the standard of measurement is
normally kept at a higher level and we do not find the rejection was arbitrary or interfering with the process of natural justice or equity.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
