Madras High Court
S.Saravanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.35420 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.35420 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.35377 of 2023
S.Saravanan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department (Police XVII),
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Director of Fire & Rescue Services,
Director General of Police,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.35420 of 2023
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned Order dated 24.08.2022 in Na.Ka.No.10824/Aa1/2019
issued by the 4th Respondent rejecting appointment to the Petitioner as Firemen,
citing G.O.Ms.No.386, dated 14.09.2021 amending the Rule 5(B) of the Tamil
Nadu Fire Subordinate Service Rules and quash the same as issued without
application of mind and contrary to settled proposition of law and further direct
the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Fireman in the Tamilnadu Fires
Subordinate Service based on the provisional selection list dated 25.11.2021 in
pursuant to the Notification vide Advertisement No.1/2020 dated 17.09.2020
for the recruitment of Grade II Police Constable, Grade II Jail Warder and amp;
MET Fireman, taking into account of the police verification report with all the
consequential benefits in par with the other selected candidates.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Indrajith
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Dr.T.Seenivasan
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.35420 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the Amendment and also the
order of the 4th respondent rejecting to appoint the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner is facing the criminal case or suppressing the pendency of the
criminal case and on being dissatisfied with his previous conduct. Challenge
has been made mainly on the ground that the Amendment has been brought
subsequent to the Notification.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional
Advocate General brought to the notice of this Court that the Amendment
brought in Sub Rule 3 on 14.09.2021was struck down by the Madurai Bench of
this Court and the same has been challenged before the Division Bench in
W.A.(MD).No.232 and 233 of 2023 and the Division Bench by judgment dated
08.03.2023 directed the authority to consider suitability of the petitioners in
terms of Rule 5 B(1) and take appropriate decision. Learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks similar direction in this writ petition also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that they have
strictly followed the judgement of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of
this Court and they have also followed the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav vs Union of India & others
reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 798, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
as follows:-
''69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to
shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made
applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are
as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinized thoroughly by the public
employer concerned, 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 (See Commissioner of
Police vs Raj Kumar (2021) 8 SCC 347).
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider the antecedents and cannot be
completed to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case
would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the
post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the
antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is
suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false
statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution,
conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had
suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters
having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
terminated from service.
d) The generalizations about the youth, career prospects and age of
the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct,
should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose
action is being challenged acted malafide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority
concerned was fair and reasonable?''
4. However, the very notification bringing the amendment was struck
down by this Court and the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court by
judgment dated 08.03.2023, directed the authority to consider suitability of the
petitioner in terms of Rule 5 B(1) and take appropriate decision. The same
direction follows in this case also.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in
this writ petition has not suppressed the pendency of the criminal case and the
same has been disclosed in the application. That apart, it is also brought to the
knowledge of this Court that some of the candidates are also appointed despite
the fact that they were having criminal case and subsequently the same were
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. This court expect that the authorities should act fairly in all cases.
Accordingly, the appointing authority viz., The Director of Fire & Rescue
Services is directed to consider the suitability of the petitioner in terms of Rule 5
B(1) of Tamil Nadu Fire Subordinate Service Rules and take appropriate
decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.01.2024
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
gvn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department (Police XVII),
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chairman,
Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Director of Fire & Rescue Services,
Director General of Police,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
gvn
and
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
