Madras High Court
K.Bharathiraja vs The Director General Of Police on 9 August, 2021
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
K.Bharathiraja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the District Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 114 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to review the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
10.05.2019 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13733 of 2018 passed by this
Court and allow the writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
************
This Review Application has been filed against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13733 of 2018 dated
10.05.2019.
2.The petitioner was one among the candidates, who
participated in the selection process conducted by the respondent
for direct appointment to the Grade II Police Constable, Grade II
Jail Warden or Fireman. After the selection process, the
candidature of the petitioner was rejected through the impugned
order passed by the respondents dated 18.04.2018.
3.The said order was under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.13733 of
2018. The said writ petition, along with other similar writ petitions,
were clubbed together, were heard and a common order including
the writ petition referred to above was made, dated 10.05.2019. As
against the said order, insofar as the petitioner writ petitioner ie.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.13733 of 2018 is concerned, the present review
application has been filed.
4.Category of cases had been made, under which, those cases
which are covered under category 1 were allowed, where positive
directions were given to select and give posting orders to the
respective petitioners. In category 2, the impugned orders were
quashed and the matter was remanded back to the respondents
and in the third category, the candidates were outrightly rejected
and those writ petitions were dismissed. The petitioner's case is
one among the third category, as two reasons had been given for
rejection of the petitioner's candidature by the respondents. First
reason is that, the petitioner has not disclosed his involvement in
the criminal case. Second is, his acquittal is not an honourable
acquittal, but only based on benefit of doubt. Only in this context,
learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to review the order passed
by this court in the said writ petition, on the ground that, if at all
the petitioner is to be categorised, he should not be categorised in
the third category, because the petitioner had been acquitted from
the criminal case and he has disclosed the said involvement in the
application itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
5.I have heard Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents also.
6.Though it may not form part of the order impugned passed
by the respondents, which was challenged in the writ petition, he
has disclosed the involvement in the criminal case. The fact
remains that, the petitioner though had been acquitted from the
criminal case in Crime No.13 of 2013, at All Women Police Station,
Aranthangi, involving in alleged offence under Sections 498A, 342
and 506(i), 1 to 6 witnesses, since turned hostile, the concerned
Court had acquitted the petitioner only on benefit of doubt, but not
based on any honourable acquittal.
7.In this context, though it was canvassed by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that, the said acquittal can be treated
only as an honourable acquittal, this Court does not want to go into
that controversy, as on perusal of the judgment, since it has been
disclosed that, it is only an acquittal out of benefit of doubt, the
petitioner had been, of course, rightly categorised under the third
category. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, there
is no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in the
said order, which is sought to be reviewed in this Review
Application, as his categorization in the third category is based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
the reasons as discussed above. Hence, this Court feels that no
plausible reason is available to review the order.
8.Accordingly, the Review Application fails and hence, it is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
09.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the District Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
MR
ORDER MADE IN
REV.APLW(MD)No.57 of 2021
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
