Madras High Court

U.Muthuramalingam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 24 March, 2022

                                                                        W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED: 24.03.2022

                                                           CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022
                                                          and
                                               W.M.P.(MD) No.3790 of 2022

                 U.Muthuramalingam                                                    ... Petitioner
                                                              vs.

                 1.The Superintendent of Police
                   Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli

                 2.The Tamiladu Uniformed
                    Services Recruitment Board
                   Chennai-600 008
                   rep.by its Member Secretary

                 3.The Director General of Police
                   Chennai-600 004                                                    ... Respondents

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

                 issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to

                 the      proceedings     of   the   1st   respondent   dated    31.12.2021        made   in

                 Na.Ka.No.A4/31580/2020, quash the same and consequently direct the

                 respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner for appointment

                 to the post of Police Constable Grade-II in the common recruitment for the

                 year 2020.


                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                    W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022


                           For Petitioner     : Ms.C.Geetha
                                                for Mr.Rajasekaran.K.

                           For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
                                             Additional Advocate General
                                             assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam
                                             Special Government Pleader

                                                       ORDER

The order of rejection, dated 31.12.2021, passed by the first

respondent, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the

post of Grade-II Police Constable, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for

recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and he was successful in

the written examination and allowed to participate in the physical verification

test and endurance test.

3. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime

No.65 of 2018, on the file of Munneerpallam Police Station, under Sections

147, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and

subsequently, the case was ended in compromise and based on the

compromise, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3235 of 2018 filed by the petitioner was allowed

on 07.03.2018.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022

4. This apart, the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding

registration of the criminal case in the application form, but informed the

same during verification. Therefore, the Selection Committee considered all

the facts and formed an opinion that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of

material fact regarding registration of criminal case. Further, the criminal

case was quashed by this Court based on the compromise arrived at between

the parties. Thus, the Committee found that the character and antecedents of

the petitioner are not satisfactory.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that nature of dispute is

immaterial as far as the selection process is concerned. High Court cannot go

into the nature of allegations in a criminal case as the decision of the Selection

Committee in this regard became final.

6. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the

case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar, by Judgment dated

25.08.2021, passed in C.A.No.4960 of 2021, has held as follows:-

“26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022

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 Commission [(2008) 2 SCC 119] 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

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022

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

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022

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 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

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2062 of 2022

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.”

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the verification of

suitability, eligibility and antecedents of the candidates are of paramount

important. The decision of the Selection Committee in this regard becomes

final. High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Selection

Committee regarding the assessment of suitability, eligibility and verification

of the antecedents. Hence, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of

the order impugned rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

24.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

____________