Kerala High Court questions the appointment of bodybuilders Chitharesh Natesan and Shinu Chovva to the armed police force despite issues over physical fitness tests.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has questioned the basis for appointing two bodybuilders as sub-inspectors in the State armed police force despite issues concerning their physical fitness tests.
The Kerala High Court has sought clarification over the appointment of bodybuilders Chitharesh Natesan and Shinu Chovva to the State's armed police force after questions were raised about their physical fitness tests.
Also Read
Justice A. Badharudeen orally questioned how candidates who had not cleared the prescribed physical requirements could be appointed to the armed police force.
The matter came before the court on a petition filed by advocate K.M. Shajahan seeking a Vigilance inquiry into the appointments.
What happened with the two appointments?
According to the submissions before the court, Natesan and Chovva were appointed by creating two supernumerary posts following a Cabinet decision of the previous government.
The prosecution told the court that the two were called for a physical fitness test only after controversy arose over their appointments.
It was submitted that Natesan did not appear for the sports test, while Chovva appeared but failed to clear it.
The government has maintained that the appointments were part of a Cabinet policy decision and that senior police officials had no role in the process.
Why did the court raise questions?
The court sought clarity on whether the failure to meet the physical requirements had been brought to the Cabinet's attention before the appointments were finalised.
The court observed that if the prescribed norms had not been followed, the issue could amount to an irregularity.
Counsel for Chovva argued that the appointments were made under a provision intended to honour people who had participated in international sporting competitions. The counsel also sought clarity on who issued the appointment orders and whether the physical-test issue had been placed before the Cabinet again.
The court adjourned the matter to Monday after the petitioner indicated that a response would be filed to the government's position.
What is the government's position?
The Home Department's Deputy Secretary has filed an explanation stating that the appointments were the result of a Cabinet policy decision and that high-ranking police officers had no role in them.
The prosecution also argued that the appointments did not fall within the scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that a preliminary Vigilance inquiry was therefore unnecessary.
The government further stated that although appointment orders had been issued, neither of the two bodybuilders had joined training or entered service.
Who is Chitharesh Natesan?
Chitharesh Natesan is an Indian professional bodybuilder from Kerala. He won the Mr Universe title at the 2019 World Bodybuilding and Physique Sports Championship in South Korea.
The controversy before the High Court, however, concerns the manner of his appointment to the armed police force and not his sporting achievements.
What happens next?
The High Court is expected to take up the matter again on Monday after considering the response to the government's stand.
The central question before the court is whether the appointments complied with the applicable rules and whether the physical-test results were properly considered before the appointments were made.
The case does not establish any wrongdoing at this stage. The court has questioned the basis of the appointments, while the government has defended them as part of a Cabinet policy decision.
Why the case matters
The case raises questions about the relationship between special appointments based on sporting achievements and the eligibility requirements applicable to posts in the armed police force.
It also puts the focus on whether policy decisions granting appointments can override or bypass prescribed recruitment requirements, and what procedure must be followed when an appointee does not meet those requirements.
The High Court's observations are questions raised during the proceedings and should not be treated as a final finding against the appointees or the government.
Published: 12 Aug 2026, 07:55 am IST
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Related Topics
Disclaimer: Kindly avoid objectionable, derogatory, unlawful and lewd comments, while responding to reports. Such comments are punishable under cyber laws. Please keep away from personal attacks. The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of readers and not that of Mathrubhumi.