Madras High Court
C.Arunkumar vs ) The Director General Of Police on 22 November, 2021
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE THIRU.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
C.Arunkumar .. Appellant
vs.
1) The Director General of Police,
State Head Quarters Office,
Chennai-4.
2) The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
3) The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
4) The Inspector of Police,
Chathirapatti Police Station,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 21.10.2021 made in Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.88 of 2021 in
W.P(MD)No.12670 of 2018.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.M.Siddharthan,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The writ appeal is directed against the order passed in
Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.88 of 2021, dated 21.10.2021.
2. The matter relates to recruitment of Grade-II Police
Constables. The learned single Judge had taken it as a batch and
categorised into three, namely,
i) candidates those who have not disclosed in the application
form that they were involved in the criminal case;
ii) even though they were involved in the criminal case, they
were acquitted; and
iii) whether they were honorably acquitted or by way of
benefit of doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
3. In the case of the appellant, he was rejected, because,
he has not disclosed in the application form that he was involved in
the criminal case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the appellant was a juvenile on the date, he was involved in the
criminal case.
5. Be that as it may, the reason for rejection is that the
appellant has not disclosed the details in the application form. It is
not only that the appellant was involved in the criminal case, but his
acquittal was only based on benefit of doubt and not of honorable
acquittal. Therefore, on both the reasons, his application was
rejected. In the review also, the learned Judge did not find any
error apparent on the face of the record and it was rejected. It is to
be noted that there is no writ appeal filed against the original order
passed in the writ petition. As the scope of review itself is very
limited, the same was rejected. We also see no reasons, on merits,
to entertain this writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [P.V.,J.]
22.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala
To
1) The Director General of Police,
State Head Quarters Office,
Chennai-4.
2) The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
3) The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
4) The Inspector of Police,
Chathirapatti Police Station,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.2105 of 2021
DATED : 22.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
