Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The State Of Tamilnadu vs K.Vilvalingam
2021 Latest Caselaw 511 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 511 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2021

Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs K.Vilvalingam on 7 January, 2021
                                                                              W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 07.01.2021
                                                       CORAM:
                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                         AND
                                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
                                               W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018

                      1.The State of Tamilnadu
                        represented by its
                        Director General of Police
                        Beach Road,
                        Chennai.

                      2.Uniform Service Recruitment Board,
                        Represented by its Chairman
                        Kamarajar Salai
                        Chennai.                                            :Appellants
                                                          Vs.
                      K.Vilvalingam                                         : Respondent

                      PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
                      order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.6014/2012 dated 16.04.2013.
                                  For Appellants           : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
                                                           Special Government Pleader
                                  For Respondents          : Mr.S.Rajasekar for
                                                           Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy



                      1/7


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                                   W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018


                                                       JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved over

the order of the learned single Judge, by which, the impugned order

cancelling the admission order on the ground that he was involved in a

criminal case and he has not mentioned about the same by suppressing it,

the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the

offence said to have been involved was too trivial and he was acquitted by

the competent Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been

filed.

2.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, namely,

the second appellant conducted selection for the post of Grade II Police

Constable for the year 2007-08. The respondent/writ petitioner was

provisionally selected. He also went through the medical examination,

having found fit enough to get the appointment. However, during police

verification, it was found that the respondent was involved in Crime No.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018

51/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 149, 279 and

294(b) IPC, 71(A) MCP Act 4/2, 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Accordingly, a charge sheet was filed on 30.11.2005, in which, the

respondent was arrayed as Accused No.38. He attended the Court on

22.04.2009. He was acquitted honourably in Crl.R.C.No.337/2011 dated

08.06.2011. Thus, placing reliance upon the Rules 14(b) of Special Rules

for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service, as amended in

G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 30.01.2003, he cannot be selected.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants

submitted that the fact that the respondent was involved in a criminal case is

not in dispute. The appointment was not made in tune with Rule 14(b) of

the said Rules, which has been upheld by this Court. A mere acquittal per

se would not be the factor facilitating the respondent to get the appointment.

He has also not informed the appellants about the pendency of the acquittal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of

the decision rendered in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [(2016)

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018

8 SCC 471] particularly, Paragraph Nos.38.4 and 38.4.1, the order of the

learned single Judge requires to be confirmed. There is no suppression

involved and the offence itself was trivial. In any case, he has been

acquitted honourably subsequent to the admission order dated 13.09.2006.

5. We do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge

warranting interference. The allegation against the respondent is that he

along with scores of persons attended Thevar Jayanthi function, though

there was a prohibition in force. Admittedly, the name of the respondent

was not mentioned in the FIR. The records would show that he was served

with the copies only after the admission made. He attended the Court only

on 22.04.2009. He was acquitted on 08.06.2011 honourably. These factors

have also been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants

themselves before the learned single Judge.

6. From the above, there is nothing to substantiate the statement made

in the impugned order, which the appellants seek to sustain that the

respondent was aware of the pendency of the case. In any case, the alleged

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018

involvement was very trivial. When the respondent was honourably

acquitted, there cannot be any reliance upon the FIR, which also did not

indicate his name. The charge sheet was filed on 30.11.2005 and the result

of the selection was published on 11.03.2003 itself and the copy of the

charge sheet along with the documens was served upon the respondent is

thereafter. In the judgment referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court was

pleased to hold that even in a case of suppression or false information of

involvement in a criminal case, where, the acquittal or conviction have

already been recorded before filing the application, the denial for

employment is not automatic, especially, the offence alleged is very trivial

in nature and the incumbent would be unfit to hold the post.

7. In the case on hand, the respondent has been acquitted honourably

and therefore, no conviction against him. As stated, there is no material to

hold that he has suppressed the pendency of the criminal case at the earliest

point of time, as his name was not in the FIR. Thus, looking from any

perspective, the order of the single Judge requires to be confirmed.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018

8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Inasmuch as the

respondent has already suffered substantial number of years during the

pendency of the proceedings, the appellants are directed to give effect to the

order of the learned single Judge within a period of twelve weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, we will make it clear

that our order cannot be construed to mean that the respondent is not

required to comply with the other requirements for the post before getting

appointed, which might include physical training. No costs.



                                                                  [M.M.S., J.] & [S.A.I, J.]
                                                                      07.01.2021
                      Index       : Yes/No
                      Internet    : Yes

                      RR







http://www.judis.nic.in
                                  W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018


                               M.M.SUNDRESH, J
                                                AND
                                   S.ANANTHI, J

                                                   RR




                                     Order made in
                            W.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018




                                         07.01.2021







http://www.judis.nic.in

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter