Madras High Court

C.Madhanraj vs The Chairman on 24 March, 2022

                                                                 W.P.(MD) No.697 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.697 of 2022
                                                        and
                                             W.M.P.(MD) No.552 of 2022

                 C.Madhanraj                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                        vs.

                 1.The Chairman
                   Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
                    Recruitment Board
                   Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus
                   Pantheon Road
                   Egmore, Chennai-600 008

                 2.The Superintendent of Police
                   Tenkasi District
                   Tenkasi                                                     ... 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 impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 21.06.2021 made in

                 Na.Ka.No.A4/16449/2019 and to quash the same, consequently direct the

                 respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable

                 based on the selection process of the year 2019 forthwith.


                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                    W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022


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


                                                       ORDER

The order of rejection, dated 21.06.2021, passed by the second

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.91 of 2016, on the file of Chinnakovilankulam Police Station, under

Sections 147, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The petitioner was acquitted

under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., on the ground that the complainant turned

hostile.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner is not involved in any criminal case. Some of his family members,

who were present in the scene of occurrence, made the Police to arrest the

petitioner and otherwise, he is innocent of the allegations.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General objected the said

contention by stating that the allegations in the criminal case against the

petitioner are serious in nature. Though the petitioner was acquitted in the

criminal case, the Selection Committee considered the nature of allegations,

character and antecedents of the petitioner while forming an opinion.

6. This Court is of the opinion that the overall opinion formed by

the Selection Committee regarding character and antecedents of the candidate

cannot be interfered with by the High Court in a routine manner, unless such

a decision of the Selection Committee is tainted with mala fides or directly in

violation of the statutory provisions of law. Therefore, the scope of judicial

review into the decision of the Selection Committee by the High Court is

absolutely limited. High Court cannot sit on appeal on the Selection

Committee and compare the relative merits and take a decision. High Court

cannot exercise such powers against the decision of the Selection Committee.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022

It is beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. The fact remains that a criminal case was registered against the

petitioner and he was arrested on 24.11.2017 and the case was ended with an

order of acquittal. However, the Selection Committee considered all over

relative merits and formed an opinion that the petitioner is not suitable and

eligible for selection.

7. 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 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.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022

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

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022

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, 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

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022

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, 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.”

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

suitability, eligibility and antecedents of the candidates is of paramount

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.697 of 2022

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.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No