Madras High Court
M.Sathish Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 22 March, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
M.Sathish Kumar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu State,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2. Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records of the impugned proceedings in C.No.A3/29575/2017
dated 24.10.2019 conducted by the 3rd respondent and quash the
same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further direct
the respondents to issue Appointment Order to the petitioner for
selection of Police Constable Grade II in Tamil Nadu Special Police
within the period stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muniasamy
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Spl.Govt.Pleader
ORDER
The order of rejection, dated 24.10.2019, passed by the 3rd
respondent, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for
selection to the post of Police Constable Grade-II, is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and
was successful in the written examination. He was allowed to
participate in the physical verification test and endurance test. The
petitioner succeeded in the tests also. During the verification
process, the Selection Committee found that the petitioner
suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal case
against him. The petitioner has suppressed the said registration of
the criminal case in the application submitted pursuant to the
Notification. Considering the fact that the petitioner has
suppressed the fact regarding the registration of the criminal case,
the order of rejection was passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner strenuously contended that the suppression must be
related to the material facts. Certain trivial offences and the
registration of criminal case for such trivial offences cannot be a
ground to reject the case on suppression of material facts. In other
words, it is contended that suppression of material facts in respect
of the criminal cases registered based on trivial offences is not a
valid ground for rejection. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that the petitioner was acquitted honorably that
also is to be considered. The order of acquittal was passed by the
trial Court. In the revision petition, the petitioner was acquitted
honourably.
4. The petitioner relied on the Instruction issued by the
Director General of Police and the points to be considered by the
authorities are narrated in the said Instructions issued by the
Director General of Police. With reference to the instructions
issued by the Director General of Police, the said Instructions are
issued only for guiding the Competent Authorities and such
Instructions would not confer any right on the petitioner either to
rely on the same or to refer for the purpose of selection to the post.
Such instructions reveals various aspects, which are all to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
considered and such instructions are of no statutory enforceability.
Therefore, relying on such instructions, inferences cannot be drawn
in respect of the principles settled by the Constitutional Courts
across the Country.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the issues regarding the
selection was elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2018 (1) CTC 335). The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred
the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and Others reported in (2016 (8) SCC 471) that was also considered by the Full
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Even recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the principles considering Avtar Singh 's case (cited supra) and all earlier
cases decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj
Kumar in C.A.No.4960 of 2021 dated 25.08.2021 held as follows:-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
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...
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
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, 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.”
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner his all fairness
admitted the fact that the petitioner has suppressed the fact
regarding the registration of criminal case both in the application
as well as during verification. However, he made an attempt to
distinguish the suppression by stating that it is not a material
suppression, but the offences are trivial in nature and therefore,
the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered.
7. Beyond the registration of the criminal case, suppression
itself is sufficient to reject the application. Even in cases, where
there is no suppression, then also the competent Selection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
Committee is empowered to make independent assessment
regarding the merits, antecedents, eligibility and suitability. The
scope of judicial review is limited in this aspect. The decision of
the Selection Committee became final in all respects. Writ against
the decision of the Selection Committee needs to be entertained
only if such decision is tainted with mala fides or on allegation of
fraud or corruptive activities are established beyond any pale of
doubt.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
regarding suppression no distinction need to be adopted. When a
suppression is apparent with reference to the registration of a
criminal case that is sufficient enough to hold that the writ
petitioner is not entitled for the relief. Suppression cannot be
quantified by stating that the offences are trivial in nature. Only in
respect of heinous offences, the material facts are to be disclosed
in the application. The application states that Whether any
criminal case is registered against the applicant or not?. In such
circumstances, if the applicant says, 'No', then, it amounts to
suppression of facts, if the criminal case registered against him.
This being the principles to be adopted, the case of the writ
petitioner was rejected on the ground of suppression of material
facts regarding the registration of criminal case both in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
application as well as at the time of verification. Thus, this Court
do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of rejection
passed by the 3rd respondent.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
22.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
MPK
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu State,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2. Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
MPK
W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
