S.R.Rajesh vs Tamilnadu Uniformed Service ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 589 Mad

                                                                                W.P.No.180 of 2021

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED 07.01.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

                                                    W.P.No.180 of 2021
                                                    (Heard through VC)

                  S.R.Rajesh                                                   .. Petitioner

                                                           -vs-

                  1.Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
                    No.807, P.T.Lee,
                    Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai,
                    Egmore, Chennai – 600 002.

                  2.The Superintendent of Police,
                    O/o. Superintendent Police Office,
                    District Police Department,
                    Nagarcoil.                                              .. Respondents


                  Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
                  a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd
                  respondent in Na.Ka.No.3/51150/2012 dated 20.12.2012 and quash
                  the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the
                  petitioner's representation dated 17.09.2020.


                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.A.Sakthivel

                                   For Respondent-1    : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
                                                         Special Government Pleader

                                   For Respondent-2    : Ms.M.Lalitha
                                                         Government Advocate




                 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                        W.P.No.180 of 2021

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition, challenging

the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3/51150/2012

dated 20.12.2012 and a consequential direction to the first respondent

to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.09.2020.

2. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Special Government Pleader takes

notice on behalf of the first respondent. Ms.M.Lalitha, learned

Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.

By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final

disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner had involved in a criminal case

and therefore, he cannot casually ask for a suitable appointment in the

Police Department, which is otherwise known as a Disciplined Force.

Even though the petitioner stated that he was acquitted from the

criminal case, it was not on merits, but on the ground benefit of doubt

and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs.

Abhijit Singh Pawar, reported in 2018 (18) SCC 733, he is not

entitled to the relief sought for. A Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.180 of 2021

case of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu

Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai, reported in

2008 (2) CTC 97, had considered the scope of Rule 14(b) of Tamil

Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 in the light of

Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and held that a person

acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still

be considered as disqualified for selection to the Police service and the

failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either of his

involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against

him would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on

the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate

outcome of the criminal case.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred to supra

clearly held that despite disclosure of antecedents by a candidate, it is

well within the ambit of the employer to consider the same as well as

the suitability of the candidate. It was also made clear in the judgment

that the employer has every right to take into account the severity of

charges, nature of acquittal, etc., to suit the job profile, for which the

selection is undertaken.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.180 of 2021

5. In the result, finding much force in the contention of the

respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot demand

appointment in a disciplined force rightfully and the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No

costs.

                                                                                     07.01.2021


                  Index                     :   Yes/no
                  Speaking order            :   Yes/No
                  rsi

                  To

1.Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent Police Office, District Police Department, Nagarcoil.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.180 of 2021

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

rsi

W.P.No.180 of 2021

07.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/