M. M. Kumar; CJ.:— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 18.05.2007 rendered by the learned Single Judger of this Court, dismissing the writ petition, SWP no. 306/2006 filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant has claimed in an earlier writ petition, SWP no. 39/2005, that while working as SPO in the office of Inspector General of Police, he was selected and appointed as a Follower in the 9th Bn of I.R. Pand his antecedents were duly certified by the concerned S.H.O. The appellant alleged that he was not allowed to join on regular basis. In reply the respondents-authorities took the stand that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had reported against the appellant. According to the report the appellant had been a close associate of a group commander of JKLF, a militant organization. Accordingly, he was refused appointment. However, the learned Single Judge disposed of SWP No. 39/2005 with the observation that respondents should have considered his performance as SPO as per the communication by the IGP. Accordingly, it was directed that the case of the appellant be considered afresh by passing an appropriate order. 3. As per the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 39/2005, the respondent-Director General of Police passed Order no. 327 of 2006 dated 30.01.2006 rejecting the claim made by the appellant on account of the fact that adverse verification report regarding his antecedents was furnished by the CID Headquarters. According to the report, the appellant was affiliated with JKLF and was not found eligible for appointment as a Follower in the Police Department. As a result, the claim of the appellant for his regular appointment as Follower was rejected. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order dated 30.01.2006, the appellant again filed SWP No. 306 of 2006. The learned Single Judge duly considered the matter and rejected the argument that merely because the appellant was serving as SPO in the office of DIG would not per se entitle him to regular/formal appointment as Follower and observed as under:- "I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. The learned Single Judge duly considered the matter and rejected the argument that merely because the appellant was serving as SPO in the office of DIG would not per se entitle him to regular/formal appointment as Follower and observed as under:- "I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Admittedly, petitioner had been selected for being appointment as a Follower in Police Department, but in view of well settled law mere selection would not vest the right of appointment in him particularly because it was subject to verification of his antecedents which unfortunately for him were not reported positively due to which he lost the prospects of getting appointed as a Follower in Police Department. It hardly requires any argumentation to show that a person having dubious past links cannot be reasonably employed in Police Department for reason of the sensitivities attached to the service. The fact that petitioner is currently serving as SPO in DIGs office would not per se entitled him to regular/formal appointment against the weight of circumstances as catalogued above, even though, his continued engagement as such besides his certified conduct as SPO would perhaps favour him. In totality of circumstances as catalogued above, I find that the petition does not have enough substance to entitle the petitioner to relief prayed for. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with of course an observation that even while petitioners previous antecedents dis-entitle him to be employed in police service, his certified performance as SPO which is apparently reinforced by his continued engagement in DIGs office, perhaps recommends consideration of his claim, for some menial job in respondent department. Matter stands accordingly disposed of. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that this appeal does not merit acceptance. 6. The antecedents of the appellant, as disclosed by the Criminal Investigation Department, would not be worthy of his regular appointment to the post of Follower. The mere fact of work and conduct of the appellant on the post of SPO would not be sufficient to conclude that he could be given appointment on regular basis as Follower in the Police Department. The court cannot impose an employee on the Police Department whose antecedents are doubtful and are unacceptable. The mere fact of work and conduct of the appellant on the post of SPO would not be sufficient to conclude that he could be given appointment on regular basis as Follower in the Police Department. The court cannot impose an employee on the Police Department whose antecedents are doubtful and are unacceptable. The Police Department is a sensitive organization where persons with good antecedents could alone be appointed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed