Madras High Court
R.Sabarish vs The Director on 8 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
W.M.P(MD).No.15526 of 2019
R.Sabarish ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-08.
3.The Chairman/Member,
Recruitment Sub-Committee,
Thoothukudi Centre,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil. ... Respondents
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
Prayer:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.306/Aa.
1/2018 dated 25.07.2019 and quash the same as illegal and for
consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to
participate in the training and subsequently appoint the petitioner as Grade-
II Police Constable/Grade-II Jail Warden and Fireman in the selection
process for the year 2017-18.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.George Paul Anto
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by
Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Special Government Pleader
******
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the candidature of the petitioner
for selection to the posts of Grade-II Police Constable, Grade-II Jail Warden
and Fireman is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
2.Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the
respondents, the petitioner participated in the process of selection for
appointment to the posts of Grade-II Police Constable, Grade-II Jail Warden
and Fireman. The petitioner was successful in the written examination and
participated in the physical verification test and endurance test.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General made a submission
that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding the registration of
criminal case against him in Crime No.820 of 2015 under Section 75 of
Tamil Nadu City Police Act. He paid the fine amount of Rs.750/-. However,
the facts were not disclosed in the application submitted by the petitioner.
Only during verification, the petitioner informed about criminal case and
therefore, the Authorities found that suppression is a ground for rejecting
the candidature. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar in C.A.No.4960 of 2021
dated 25.08.2021 held as follows:-
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second
guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or
post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the
materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense
scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders
the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into
executive power of determining suitability of an individual for
appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V.
Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission7 held as
follows:
“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the
selection of the candidates. Normally, the
recommendations of the Selection Committee
cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala
fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The
courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to
examine the recommendations of the Selection
Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion
has been given to the Selection Committee only and
courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the
selection of the candidates nor is the business of
the court to examine each candidate and record its
opinion...
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit
as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal
records and constitute Selection Committee to
undertake this exercise. This power is not given to
the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood
that the assessment of the Selection Committee is
not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or
by the courts. One has to give credit to the
Selection Committee for making their assessment
and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall
view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to
be very good and another may be held to be good.
If this type of interference is permitted then it would
virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High
Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee
or act as an Appellate Authority over the
selection.”
29. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that
the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who
should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern
essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age,
number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each
candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service.
Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to
ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied
fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is
entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public
employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision
making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.
30. The High Court’s approach, evident from its
observations about the youth and age of the candidates,
appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour
which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned
order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should
not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural
setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations,
leading to condonation of the offender’s conduct, should not
enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types
of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and
beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or
without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also
be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour. Each
case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
through its designated officials- more so, in the case of
recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to
maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to
inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.”
4. Even in respect of trivial offences, if a person suppressed the
material facts in the application, it is a ground for rejection of application
itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in many number of judgments
held that the candidates, who have suppressed the fact in the application
itself, are not entitled for any relief and such applications are liable to be
rejected on the threshold. Providing of true information in the application is
of paramount importance. Incorrect details or suppression of details would
result in wrong selection. That is the reason why the applications are
rejected on the ground of suppression of fact. The selections are to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures. Now, on account of
unemployment issues in our country, even for small number of posts, huge
number of applications are received by the Recruitment Board. They are in
the process of scrutinisation. Previously, the selection was based on a
particular criteria. Now, the elimination is the point for selection. This being
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
the development in the selection process across the Country, this Court is of
the opinion that the candidates, who suppressed the material facts in the
application, are not entitled for the relief. Verification of character and
antecedent is of paramount importance and the assessment made in this
regard by the Competent Selection Committee is final. High Court cannot
interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee regarding the
assessment of suitability, eligibility and verification of the antecedents.
Once it is found that the petitioner has involved in a criminal case, this
Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned rejecting
the candidature of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.04.2022
ssb
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
To
1.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-08.
3.The Chairman/Member,
Recruitment Sub-Committee,
Thoothukudi Centre,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssb
W.P.(MD) No.19161 of 2019
08.04.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
