Judgment :- D. Sreedevi, J. The petitioner was advised by the 2nd respondent under Ext. P1 for recruitment as Police Constable in the Police Department. He was rank-holder No. 319. Petitioner has come to know that all persons who were advised along with the petitioner by the Public Service Commission were called for training. But the petitioner was not called for training. Hence he filed this O.P. for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner for training and also to declare that he is entitled to undergo training. 2. Respondent No. 4 filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No. 314 of 1994 of Vellarada Police Station registered for the offences under Ss.143, 147, 148, 149, 435, 427, 324, 326, 332 and 307IPC. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed in Court on 26.2.1998 and is pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Ill, Neyyattinkara. The fact was suppressed by the petitioner in column 19(a) and (b) of the verification roll filled up by him on 26.9.1994. 3. As per G.O.(P) 161/69/Home and G.O.(P) 314/94/Home dated 26.12.1994, the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police has to verify the character and antecedents of the candidates advised for appointment in government service before admitting to the training course. In case the report is adverse to the candidate the Superintendent of the Police or Commissioner of Police should forward the report with the connected records to the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Thiruvananthapuram. He has to forward all adverse reports to the Government in Home Department Along with the adverse report the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) should furnish necessary details also. Where a criminal case is pending against a candidate the verification report need be forwarded to Government only after the case is finally disposed of by the court No direction has been received from the Inspector General of Police to admit the petitioner for the training. 4. The only disqualification for not calling him for training is that he is involved in c.p.no. 8 of 1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. Ext. P2 is the F.I.R. wherein the petitioner's name is not included. Ext. P2(a) is the first information statement. That also does not make mention of the petitioner's name. On going through the first information statement, it is seen that the petitioner's name is not included. 8 of 1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court. Ext. P2 is the F.I.R. wherein the petitioner's name is not included. Ext. P2(a) is the first information statement. That also does not make mention of the petitioner's name. On going through the first information statement, it is seen that the petitioner's name is not included. The crime was registered in 1994. Charge was filed in Court in 1998. It is submitted that final report regarding his antecedents will be furnished by the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) only after the disposal of the case. If mere involvement in a crime is a disqualification, any person can be defeated by mere inclusion of his name in a crime. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he is involved in a criminal case while filling up column 19(a) and (b) of the verification roll on 26.9.1998. The mere inclusion of his name in a criminal case at the late stage of investigation alone is not sufficient to disqualify a person from calling for training. R.10(b) K.S.R. provides, that the State Government must be satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. If his character and antecedents are such as to disqualify him in such service he cannot claim admission for the training. 6. Denying appointment to a candidate selected for appointment by the Public Service Commission just because he was implicated in a criminal case, the result of which may either be conviction or acquittal, is certainly denial of his opportunity to enter in service when chances of getting employment is now a nightmare due to the risk of tough competition. If at last the victim is honourably acquitted, he will be languishing loosing his hard earned chance of employment. If this is encouraged, naturally one who has enmity towards a person can destroy his future by implicating him in criminal offence as politically motivated gang atrocities are not rare in this State. In such situation, the police in their F.I.R. gives a vague report as so and so and thirty or forty others. This others can be conveniently filled with any name according to the whims and fancies of the investigating officer. The victim in the present case may be one such person whose destiny is in the doldrums. In such situation, the police in their F.I.R. gives a vague report as so and so and thirty or forty others. This others can be conveniently filled with any name according to the whims and fancies of the investigating officer. The victim in the present case may be one such person whose destiny is in the doldrums. Ultimately, after training if he is found guilty, the petitioner can be dealt with as per law. 7. Therefore, I direct the respondents to proceed with the appointment of the petitioner, after obtaining a report within three months from today about his character and antecedents, other than the involvement in the criminal case. In case there is nothing to disqualify him he shall be called for training. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs.