Madras High Court
Muniselvam vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services ... on 14 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.7422 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.7422 of 2019
Muniselvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Rep.by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2.Additional Director General of Police cum
Director General of Prison of Tamilnadu
Office of the Director General of Prisons of Tamilnadu
Egmore, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
concerned records from the respondent was the order of the respondent
dated 14.12.2018 in No.50528/EW1/2017-2 and consequently direct the
respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Grade II Constable/Grade II Jail Warden/Fire Man for the year 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
1/7
W.P.(MD)No.7422 of 2019
ORDER
Under assail is the order of the second respondent dated
14.12.2018.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent Board
issued advertisement during December 2017 inviting application for the
posts of Grade II Constable/Grade II Jail Warders/Fireman. The
petitioner applied to the same. The petitioner was participated in the
physical efficiency test as per notification and he was cleared the same.
Thereafter, he was called for medical test before the Medical Board,
Viruthunagar on 29.10.2018 and the same was also cleared by him.
When he was awaiting for orders for appointment, he had received the
order impugned issued by the second respondent dated 14.12.2018,
wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.25
of 2014 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and
in Crime No.283 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b),
323, 506(1) IPC. The petitioner has been acquitted from the above said
two cases, vide judgments dated 03.06.2016 in STC.No.113 of 2016 and
02.12.2014 in C.C.No.30 of 2014. Therefore, the order passed by the
second respondent is illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the second respondent had passed the order impugned without
notice or hearing and therefore, it is illegal. He would further submit that
at the time of submitting application, he has mentioned the criminal
cases, since he has been acquitted in the said cases. To strengthen his
contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.
32421 of 2017 dated 09.01.2020 to show that since the prosecution failed
to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner was
acquitted on benefit of doubt and the petitioner has not involved in any
serious offences.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the petitioner has cleared the physical test
and on verification of his antecedents, pursuant to the direction issued by
the Higher Authorities, it was found that the petitioner was involved in
Cr.No.25 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,
506(ii) IPC and in Crime No.283 of 2015 for the offences under Sections
147, 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC. He would also rely on the Government
Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.1410, Home (Prl-II) Department dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
17.10.2008 to put forth his contention that a person, who is acquitted or
discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant
turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
Therefore, he would vehemently contend that the petitioner is not
entitled for any relief in this writ petition. To strengthen his contention,
he has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.27639 of 2008
dated 17.08.2020. The learned Additional Government Pleader draw
attention of this Court to the paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the counter
affidavit, which reads as follows:-
6) It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has not
suppressed of involvement in criminal case at the time of
filling up of police verification roll. In Avtar Sing Vs. Union
of India and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered in detail as
to the circumstances under which the stringent action could
be taken and to what extent the employer can exercise its
discretion. The relevant portion is here enumerated as
follows:-
38.5. In a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the
employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
7) It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has
involved in a criminal case and thereby he would not fit into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
a disciplined force where every member is expected to be
honestly and sincerely report the information coming to
their knowledge, in the public interest. Further the members
of this Department are entrusted with an important
responsibility of upholding the rule of law, maintenance of
prison security, prevention of crime etc. Hence, considering
his bad antecedents, he could not be appointed to the post of
Grade II Warder.
5.This court considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials on record.
6.It is seen from the impugned order that during enquiry, it came to
light that the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.25 of 2014 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and in Crime No.
283 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(1)
IPC. Further, it is stated in the order impugned as per Rule 6(f) of the
Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service Rules, one should not be involved
in any criminal case. It is pertinent to state that in a case “where the
employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, it
is well within the hands of the employer to consider the candidature of
the employee”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
7.In the instant case, the selection process was already completed
in the year 2018 itself. Hence, the question of considering petitioner's
request for appointment to the post of Grade II Constable/Grade II Jail
Warden/Fire Man would not arise. There is no merit in this writ petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
NCC : Yes / No 14.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
gns
To
1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Rep.by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2.Additional Director General of Police cum
Director General of Prison of Tamilnadu
Office of the Director General of Prisons of Tamilnadu
Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:54:28 am )
