I do not think that it would be necessary or proper for this Court to sit in judgement over the view taken by the Full Court because this view is certainly guided by pragmatism and by forensic prudence. In this country, as is contended by Sri. Santhosh Mathew, it is possible that one can be besieged with litigations of criminal nature by making frivolous complaints. In the case at hand, he refers to the fact that the complaint made against fifth respondent was made as early as in the year 2008 but that nothing more has been done and nothing further has been proceeded on the basis of such complaint even as of now. The mere fact of the pendency of an FIR against a person, in my view, would not be sufficient reason to assert that he is disqualified for being considered for public appointments.