Madras High Court
G.Vishnudevan vs The Chairman on 24 March, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17849 & 17850 of 2021
G.Vishnudevan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board
Chennai-3
2.The Director General of Police
Chennai-4
3.The Superintendent of Police
Madurai District
Madurai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus for the records of the impugned
order in RC.No.B1/4339/2020-3 dated 28.06.2021 on the file of the 3 rd
respondent to quash the same and further directing the respondents to
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police constable in the common recruitment
2019 or in the alternative to consider his candidature for the appointment to
the post of Fireman or Jail Warden.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balarathinakumar.T.
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The order of rejection, dated 28.06.2021, passed by the third
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. During verification, the Authorities found that the petitioner
suppressed the fact regarding registration of criminal case in Crime No.193 of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
2014, on the file of Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, under Sections 341,
294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. However, the fact remains that at the time
of registration of criminal complaint, the petitioner was juvenile. The Juvenile
Justice Board closed the case on the ground of period of limitation.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents made a submission that the petitioner suppressed the fact
regarding registration of the criminal case in the application as well as at the
time of verification.
5. As far as the juvenile offenders are concerned, if at all there is a
suppression, beyond that the Authority should consider the facts and
circumstances and whether such suppression is material fact warranting
order of rejection. In this regard, the Competent Selection Committee has to
apply its mind and ascertain whether the petitioner is guilty of such
suppression or not. If at all the petitioner found guilty, then alone a negative
decision is to be taken, otherwise there is no bar to consider the case of the
petitioner as the case was registered when the petitioner was juvenile and
subsequently, was closed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
6. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the observations made
by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav vs.
the Inspector General and Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern
Railway, New Delhi and others, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300,
wherein it has been held as follows:
“18.The Division Bench, in the impugned
judgment, has proceeded mechanically, without taking
note of the fact that a juvenile could not have been
entangled in a criminal complaint instituted against him
in October 1997 and this fact remained unnoticed by the
Division Bench that he was a juvenile when the order of
discharge was passed on 15th December, 2001 and
almost a decade thereafter, the process of selection
came to be initiated by the respondents pursuant to an
advertisement dated 23rd February 2011, the seriatim
of facts cumulatively indicate that the nature of
information which was not disclosed by the appellant, in
any manner, could be considered to be a suppression of
material information not being bona fidely disclosed in
clause 12 of attestation form filled by him. In this regard,
the finding which has been recorded by the Division
Bench in holding that there was a suppression of
material information is unsustainable and deserves to be
set aside.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
19. At the first blush, we were not inclined to grant
the appellant consequential benefits as he had not
worked after his services came to be terminated on
account of cancellation of appointment dated 19th
February 2015, but in the present facts and
circumstances, when the appellant was never at fault
and no one has afforded him a reasonable opportunity
to justify and, at the same time, the authorities have also
failed to consider that the appellant was a juvenile on
the date when the complaint was made and the date
when he was discharged by the learned trial Judge by
an order dated 15th December, 2001, these peculiar
facts were not noticed by the authority while exercising
its judicious discretion as to whether the so called
alleged suppression at all disentitle the appellant from
continuation of service.”
7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order,
dated 28.06.2021, passed by the third respondent, is quashed. The matter is
remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. The third
respondent is directed to consider all the facts and circumstances, including
suppression of fact and its implications to disqualify the petitioner for
selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and pass fresh orders by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
assigning reasons, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board,
Chennai-3.
2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai-4.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District, Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.21266 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17849 & 17850 of
24.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
