SREEMANIKANDADAS K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.41871 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ## **SREEMANIKANDADAS K.** **AGED 23 YEARS S/O GOPI V.V., VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KOTTAPARA, PULLUR P.O.KASARAGOD 671 531.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION,RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN 110003,BLOCK B,SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT AREA,VASANT VIHAR,NEW DELHI,DELHI 110057** - **2 AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LIMITED, AIRLINES HOUSE,113 GURUDWARA RAKABGANJ ROAD,NEW DELHI 110001.** - **3 AIR INDIA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER CARGO SALES AND OPERATIONS AIRLINES OFFICES BUILDING,KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,NEDUMBASSERY,KOCHI.** - **4 AIRPORT MANAGER, AIR INDIA LTD,COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,NEDUMBASSERY,COCHIN-683 111** - **5 DIRECTOR, KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,MATTANNUR RD,ANJARAKANDY,MATTANUR,KANNUR,670 702.** 2 _**WP(C).41871/18**_ - **6 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,MATTANNUR RD,ANJARAKANDY,MATTANUR,KANNUR,670 702** - **7 ADDL.R7 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KASARGOD671001.** - **8 ADDL.R8 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD. (ADDL.R7 AND R8 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 21/12/2018 IN IA.NO.01/2018)** - **9 ADDL. R9. BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY OF INDIA, SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED.** - **10 ADDL. R10. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADM.), SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED.** - **11 ADDL. R11. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SECURITY, SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED.** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON 2.7.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 41871 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of July, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Handyman under the 2[nd] respondent at the Kannur International Airport, has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him to the said post pursuant to Exhibit P2. The petitioner contends that he has been offered a contract appointment for three years as Handyman on 17.11.2018. He was required to produce a police clearance certificate for the purpose of such appointment. However, the police clearance has been rejected by Exhibit P3 on the ground that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner in Ambalathara Police Station as Crime Nos.311/15 and 310/17. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be a ground for denying employment to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner can be considered as guilty only when the commission of the crime is proved against him and he is convicted of the offence. Relying on the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in _**Guru Dutt Ranga v. Government of NCT of Delhi**_ [2006 (92) SLJ 163(CAT)], the learned counsel contends that involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty and that the denial of employment on the 4 _**WP(C).41871/18**_ ground that a person is an accused in a criminal case is completely untenable in law. The decision of the Apex Court in _**Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana**_ [(1996)4 SCC 17] where even a conviction under Section 294 IPC was not found to justify termination from service and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in _**Brijendra Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan**_ [(1997)7 SLR 655] are relied on to contend that the denial of employment on the ground of pendency of a criminal case is completely unjustified. The learned counsel would also place reliance on a decision of the learned single Judge of this court in W.P(C).No.30661 of 2015 where the issue as to pendency of a criminal case and the eligibility for appointment of a part time official receiver under the provisions of the Insolvency Act, 1955 had been considered. It was held that mere pendency of an FIR registered against a person would not be sufficient to find him to be disqualified for being considered for public appointment. Until the allegations are proven by procedure known to law, the accused person cannot be held to be disqualified for such appointments, it is contended. 3. A statement has been placed on record by the 8[th] respondent stating that the petitioner is an accused in two criminal cases and that police clearance cannot be granted in the said circumstance. 4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 2[nd] respondent contending that ground handling activities are awarded by the airlines concerned on a contractual basis and the 2[nd] respondent 5 _**WP(C).41871/18**_ had offered a contractual appointment to the petitioner. It is stated that the airport is a restricted place and an airport entry permit issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security is necessary for any employee to enter the premises. It is stated that the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security requires a police clearance certificate for the purpose of issuing the airport entry permit and these are not matters within the purview of the 2[nd] respondent. 5. A statement has been placed on record by the Central Government Counsel on behalf of respondents 9 to 11. It is contended that airports are high security areas and policy guidelines of airport entry have been issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the revised guidelines are produced as Exhibit R9(a). It is stated that Rule 90 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and Rule 18 of the Aircraft Security Rules, 2011 provide that airport entry permits are to be issued after due verification. It is stated that due verification and background checks are necessary before airport entry passes are issued. It is stated that the guidelines provide that background check by Special Branch Police/District Authorities is required and in cases where an FIR is registered or a case is pending, the authority to refuse the entry pass is vested with the Commissioner, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. It is stated that the Apex Court in _**Avtar Singh v. Union of India**_ [2016(4)KHC 359] has specifically held that the yardstick to be applied for a sensitive post considering the nature of duties to be performed 6 _**WP(C).41871/18**_ are to be fixed taking note of the nature of employment as well as the site where such employment is being offered. 6. In the instant case, it is not disputed before me that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases. The argument is that public employment cannot be denied on the ground that there are criminal cases pending. I am of the opinion that the issue raised here is not with regard to denial of public employment, but with regard to the eligibility for the issue of airport entry permits. It is not disputed that airports are high security areas and going by the provisions of the Aircraft Rules and Aircraft Security Rules, the 9[th] respondent is empowered to issue airport entry permits after conducting due verification. The contention of the petitioner that the pendency of the criminal case should have no impact on his employment cannot be accepted for the simple reason that he has been offered engagement on contract basis as Handyman which entails performance of duties inside the high security area of a commercial airport. The guidelines regarding the issuance of the airport entry permits have been formulated taking note of the security requirements for entry into such areas. In the above view of the matter, where the guidelines provide that it falls within the discretion of the competent authorities to consider whether an airport entry permit is to be issued to a person having a crime registered against him or who has a criminal record, I am of the opinion that that is a matter which has to be left to the 7 _**WP(C).41871/18**_ discretion of the appropriate authorities. The 2[nd] respondent has not denied employment to the petitioner. An airport pass being an essential requirement for carrying out the duties which have been offered to him by Exhibit P2, the petitioner is unable to carry out such duties unless such pass is issued. 7. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the declaration as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The petitioner would be disabled from carrying out his duties unless an airport entry pass is issued to him. It is undoubtedly for respondents 9 to 11 to consider whether such a pass can be issued to a person having a criminal case registered against him. It is therefore clear that in the absence of issuance of a pass, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. There can be no fetter on the discretion to be exercised by the competent authority in the matter of issuance of airport passes in the larger interests of security. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- _vgs_ 8 _**WP(C).41871/18**_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF AIATSL.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,AIATSL WITH THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,KASARGOD.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO 2039/2005 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.10.2005** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R9(a)** TRUE COPY OF REVISED AERODROME ENTRY POLICY GUIDELINES FOR ENTRY IN AIRPORT/CIVIL ENCLAVES IN INDIA ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION FROM 1ST APRIL 2014