Madras High Court
Alex Kumar vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services ... on 30 October, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
and C.M.P.(MD) No.14358 of 2023
Alex Kumar ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
-Vs.-
1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman / Member Secretary,
Recruitment Sub-Committee, Tenkasi Centre,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 13.06.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.13741 of 2023
on the file of this Court.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Appeal on hand has been instituted against the order
dated 13.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.13741 of 2023.
2. The Writ Proceedings was initiated against the non-selection
of the appellant for selection and appointment to the post of Grade – II
Police Constable to the Tamil Nadu Police Service. It is not in dispute
that the appellant participated in the process of selection for appointment
to the post of Grade – II Police Constable. The appellant disclosed the
material facts in the application relating to the registration of a criminal
case. Thus, he was allowed to participate in the process of selection. The
authorities competent considered the eligibility and suitability of the
appellant for selection and accordingly, rejected the candidature of the
appellant. The appellant challenged the said order of rejection dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
16.05.2023, and the Writ Court considered the principles of law and the
fact that the criminal case ended in compromise after filing charge sheet
and held that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief and consequently,
dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that
after disposal of the Writ Petition, the Division Bench of this Court
considered various issues in a batch of Writ Appeals and pronounced
orders on 05.06.2023 in W.A.(MD) No.938 and 939 of 2020 etc., batch.
The Division Bench considered the principles based on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court and therefore, the learned
counsel for the appellant made a request that the case of the appellant is
to be considered in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench
recently on 05.06.2023.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf
of the respondents raised an objection by stating that the case of the
appellant was considered and he was found not suitable for selection and
appointment to the post of Grade – II Police Constable and an order of
rejection was passed. The said order was challenged and the Writ Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
dismissed the Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Appeal is not
entertainable.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General relied on the recent
judgment of the Apex Court of India in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and others v. Bhupendra Yadav reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1181, wherein the Supreme Court derives the principles in paragraph
23 to 25 as under:-
“23. This is a classic example of the situation
contemplated in para 38.4.3 of Avatar Singh v. Union of India
(2016) 8 SCC 477 where the charges framed against the
respondent herein involved moral turpitude and though he was
acquitted on the prosecution witnesses having turned hostile,
but given the facts and circumstances of the case which led to
his acquittal, we are of the view that the appellant – State
Government was well within its right to exercise its discretion
against the respondent and terminate his services on the ground
that he was unfit for appointment in the police department.
Here was a case where the complainant had reneged from the
statement made to the police in view of a settlement arrived at
with the respondent. It is noteworthy that the incident, subject
matter of the criminal case had occurred on 14th February,
2015, and judgement was pronounced by the trial Court on 26th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
October, 2015. In the very next year, when the appellant – State
Government invited applications for appointment to the post of
Constable, the respondent had submitted his application. Even
though this is a case of candid disclosure of the criminal case
on the part of the respondent, which had culminated in an
acquittal, but having regard to the fact that the prosecution
could not succeed in proving the case against the respondent
for the reasons noted hereinabove and further, being mindful of
the fact that the case involved moral turpitude and the
respondent was charged with non-compoundable offences of a
serious nature, we are of the firm view that the judgment of the
trial Court cannot be treated as a clean acquittal.
24. The aforesaid aspects were rightly factored in by
the appellant – State Government while issuing the
communication dated 24th August, 20178 and declaring that
the respondent was unfit for appointment to the said post. The
yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought
relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more
stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. One must be
mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a
responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining
law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with
arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and
protecting the life and property of the public at large.
Therefore, the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person
seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
always be higher and more rigourous for the simple reason that
possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic
requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in
the police service.
25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere
acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not
automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment
to the subject post. The appellant–State Government has
judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the
relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent.
In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent
in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of
being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for
appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken
by the appellant–State Government is not tainted by any
malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered
therewith. As a result, the judgement dated 17th November,
2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld while
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 24th
January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court. The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.”
6. The order passed passed by the competent authority, which
was under challenge in the Writ Proceedings, reveals that the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
appellant was considered with reference to the facts and circumstances.
The nature of the criminal case registered against the appellant, the
charge sheet filed and the compromise between the parties as recorded in
Cr.O.P.(MD) No.19406 of 2019 were considered and finally authorities
found that the appellant is not suitable for selection and appointment to
the post of Grade – II Police Constable.
7. Assessment of suitability and eligibility is the prerogative of
the competent Selection Committee and the scope of judicial review
cannot be extended so as to interfere with such process. Verification of
character and antecedents are of paramount importance more specifically
for selection and appointment to uniformed services. The opinion formed
by the Selection Committee is final and do not fall within the scope of
judicial review, unless such decision has been taken arbitrarily or on
extraneous considerations. The case of the appellant was considered by
the competent authorities with reference to registration of criminal case
and the competent Committee ascertained the eligibility and suitability of
the appellant for selection and appointment to the post of Grade – II
Police Constable. Learned Single Judge considered the scope of
interference and dismissed the Writ Petition. Thus, we do not find any
further reason to interfere with the order impugned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
8. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 13.06.2023, passed
in W.P.(MD) No.13741 of 2023, is confirmed and consequently, the Writ
Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S.J.,] & [V.L.N.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 30.10.2023
Index :Yes/No
SJ
To
1.The Chairman / Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Recruitment Sub-Committee, Tenkasi Centre,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
SJ
W.A.(MD) No.1879 of 2023
30.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
