D.Paulraj vs The Director General Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 3531 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3531 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2022

Madras High Court

D.Paulraj vs The Director General Of Police on 24 February, 2022

                                                       1

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 24.02.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                        W.P(MD)No.2468 of 2022
                                                and
                                  W.M.P(MD)Nos.2168 and 2169 of 2022


                     D.Paulraj                                              :Petitioner

                                                           .vs.

                     1.The Director General of Police,
                       O/o.The Director General of Police,
                       Chennai-4.

                     2.The Superintendent of Police,
                       O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Kanyakumari District.                                : Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
                     of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
                     Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
                     order in Na.Ka.No.A4/9603/2021 dated 04.01.2022on the filed of
                     the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and
                     consequently, for a direction, directing the respondent No.2 to
                     appoint the petitioner in the post of Grade II Police Constable
                     within the time period stipulated by this Court.


                                  For Petitioner           :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

                                  For Respondents       :Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
                                                       Additional Advocate General
                                                      assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar,
                                                      Additional Government Pleader

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                            2

                                                     ORDER

*************

The order of rejection rejecting the candidature of the writ

petitioner for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable is

under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The order impugned states that a criminal case was

registered against the writ petitioner and he was acquitted from

the criminal charges. However, on verification of antecedents, the

authorities found that the petitioner is not fit for selection to the

post of Grade-II Police Constable.

3.The petitioner pursuant to the recruitment notification of

the year 2020 submitted his application and participated in the

written examination. The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and he was

successfully in the written examination and he participated in the

physical verification Test and Endurance Test. At the time of

verification of antecedents and certificates, the authorities found

that a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner and

he was acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., from the offence

under Sections 341 and 324 IPC.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended

that even the petitioner has participated in the earlier selection https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

process and he was not selected and therefore, he filed a writ

petition also in W.P(MD)No.17957 of 2020. In the said case, the

order of rejection was set aside and the the matter was remanded

back for considering the candidature of the petitioner in the next

process of selection. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted an

application in the recruitment process of the year 2020 and the

process concluded in the year 2021.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended

that the impugned order is cryptic in nature and the reasons

regarding the suitability and eligibility has not been furnished and

therefore, the order has to be set aside and the matter to be

remitted back for fresh consideration. The learned counsel for the

petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court and reiterated that the authorities competent are bound

to consider the eligibility, suitability and antecedents and if there is

any other adverse remarks that is to be stated in the order

impugned.

6.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents objected the said contentions by stating that even in

the present selection, the petitioner has suppressed the fact

regarding the registration of the criminal case intentionally. He has

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

filled-up the column stating that “No”. Therefore, he is not entitled

for any further consideration. Regarding the antecedents is

concerned, the authorities are verified and they have stated the

criminal case, when the authorities relied on the criminal case,

they have considered the same and formed an opinion and rejected

the candidature of the writ petitioner and therefore, there is no

infirmity as such.

7.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents furnished a copy of the application submitted by the

petitioner for the Common Recruitment of the year 2020, wherein

in the column Additional Details, the writ petitioner has stated as

under:

“Additional Details/TLjy; tptuq;fs; WHETHER ANY CRIMINAL CASE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU?/ck;kPJ VnjDk; Fw;w tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh? - No

HAVE YOU APPEARED FOR ANY PREVIOUS RECRUITMENT CONDUCTED BY TNUSRB?/ ,f;FGkj;jhy; elj;jg;gl;l Ke;ija njh;t[fspy;

gq;Fbgw;Ws;sPuh? - No

With reference to the registration of a criminal case, the petitioner

stated “No” and even with reference to the earlier participation,

the petitioner has not stated the correct answer.

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

8.This Court is of the considered opinion that the candidate,

who has suppressed certain facts which are relevant for

consideration, is not entitled to participate in the process of

selection. Even in the second column, the petitioner, in respect of

his participation in the earlier recruitment, said “No”. Such an

answer is undoubtedly not a mistake and therefore, this Court is of

an opinion that the petitioner has suppressed the facts regarding

the registration of the criminal case and further suppressed the

facts that the had participated in the earlier process of selection

and with reference to the said process of selection, he filed a writ

petition in W.P(MD)No.17957 of 2020.