Madras High Court
Sekar vs The Director General Of Police on 1 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
Sekar ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu,
Police Head Quarters,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 08.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2749 of 2019, dated 13.03.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This Writ Appeal by the Writ Petitioner is directed against the order
dated 13.03.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.2749 of 2019.
2.The appellant questioned his non-selection to the post of Grade II
Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Services owing to the fact that the he
was arrayed as an accused in a criminal case in Crime No.86 of 2016, on the file
of Elenchembur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 341, 323, 336, 506(ii), 307 I.P.C. And Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, dated 12.10.2016. The
respondent Department held that the appellant having been arrayed as 10th
accused, his charector and antecedent have been found to be unsatisfactory and
his candidature was rejected as per the guidelines issued in Rule 13(b) & (e) of
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The correctness of the order was
questioned by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, which was dismissed.
3.We have elaborately heard Mr.R.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government, appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
4.The fact that the petitioner's name found place in the F.I.R. is not
disputed and he was arrayed as 10th accused. The case of the appellant is that
there was no suppression of the said fact. While he applied for the said post, he
has mentioned about it. In the F.I.R. there is no specific overtact against the
appellant and he did not approach this Court by way of quash petition in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20765 of 2016. The persons, who approached the Court for
quashing the proceedings are Accused Nos.1, 8, 9 & 20. The Court has quashed
the proceedings on the ground that those petitioners have agreed to donate a
sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rajaji Home for the Aged and they have produced proof
of payment and a joint compromise memo was filed to that effect and the F.I.R.
was quashed.
5.It is further stated that though the name of the appellant was
mentioned in the F.I.R. and he was arrayed as Accused No.10, there was no
specific overtact against the appellant and he did not move for anticipatory bail.
Further, it is submitted that after 15 days, the entire matter has been closed. The
details of the criminal case has been disclosed by the appellant while applying
for the said post, which is two years later, after the said case has been registered
and closed. In the intergnam the appellant did not involve in any offence.
Furthermore, it is the Government policy that whenever a complaint has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
registered against a person and the matter has been closed, the benefit should be
granted to the person to participate in the recruitment to any uniformed service.
6.According to the appellant, because of the order passed in Crl.O.P.
(MD) No.20765 of 2016, the F.I.R. has been closed and hence, the benefit
should be granted to the appellant, who applied for Grade – II Police Constable
post. The above issue has not been specifically dealt with by the learned Single
Bench. Even in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Appeal by respondent No.
3, it is not specifically pointed out that the appellant was party to Crl.O.P.(MD)
No.20765 of 2016. Therefore, it is a fit case, the respondent can reconsider the
candidature of the appellant and take a decision on merits and in accordance
with law. In the event of the respondents finding that the appellant does not
suffer disqualification in terms of the guidelines issued, then the appellant's case
shall be considered for appointment, subject to availability of vacancy. The
above directions shall be complied with within twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
7.The Writ Appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 01.07.2021
sj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
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,
Tamilnadu,
Police Head Quarters,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 08.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)No.534 of 2019
01.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
