Madras High Court
Jayaprakash vs The Director General Police on 25 February, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No. 16428 of 2024
Jayaprakash ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Director General Police
Mylapore, Chennai – 04.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Salem District.
3. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, 71, Adithanar Road, Pudupet,
Komaleeswaranpet, Egmore, Chennai.
[R-3 suo motu impleaded dated 24.06.2024 made in W.P.No.
16428/2024 b y DBCJ] ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint
the petitioner as Gr.II Constable/Gr.II Jail Warder or Fireman forthwith.
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. R.Nalliyappan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For RR1 & 2 :: Ms. A.Bakkia Lakshmi
Government Advocate
For 3rd Respondent :: No appearance
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus
directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Gr.II Constable/Fr.II
Jail warder or Fireman forthwith.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been
contended that the petitioner had applied for Grade – II police examination
conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
(TNUSRB) and participated in the written examination and other tests. He
claimed that he had passed the said examination but however, the
respondents had refused to give him an appointment order since at that time
of selection, the petitioner was an accused in FIR in Cr.No. 97 of 2020
registered by the Karuppur Police Station, Salem. Subsequently, on
completing investigation, final report had been filed again arraying the
petitioner as an accused. The final report was taken cognizance as C.C.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
871 of 2020 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II Salem, for offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. By Judgment dated
12.07.2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II acquitted the petitioner for
all charges.
3. Placing reliance on the said Judgment, the petitioner now claims
that his selection should be revisited, reviewed and he must be appointed as
Grade II Police Constable / Grade II Jail Warder or Fireman with effect
from the date of selection of the year 2022.
4. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents
wherein they had stated that the petitioner was acquitted only because the
witnesses, who had to depose on behalf of the prosecution were residents of
the same locality and had turned hostile and therefore, there was no other
option but for the learned Judicial Magistrate to acquit the petitioner. It
could not be considered as a Hon'ble acquittal. It had also been contended
that subsequently in the year 2023, there was yet another recruitment
conducted and the petitioner had not participated in the same. It had been
stated that the clock cannot be set back and the petitioner be appointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
merely because subsequently he had been acquited of all charges. On the
side of the respondents, it had also been contended that a Full Bench of this
Court in W.P.No. 38289 of 2005 batch by Judgment dated 28.02.2008 in
[Manikandan and others Vs. Director General of Police] had observed as
follows:-
“12. The impugned Rule creates a classification of
persons who were not involved in criminal cases and
persons, who were involved in criminal cases. The
object of creating such a classification is to ensure that
only those persons whose character and antecedents
were beyond any shadow of doubt alone, are permitted
entry into the police service of the State. The rule is only
a reflection of the intention of the Government to
maintain purity of administration. The Rule merely
provide a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only
those, who had a clean record of personal life, are
admitted into the system. That the existing system has
already come under heavy dose of criticism cannot be
swept under the carpet. Therefore, as an employer, the
Government is entitled to prescribe, especially in a
disciplined force like the Police Force, such a
restriction at the entry level. There cannot be a dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
about the proposition that an employer has the right to
prescribe any qualifications for appointment to a post.
If that be so, an employer has a concomitant right even
to prescribe disqualifications when it comes to
appointment to a post. The prescription that Ceaser's
wife should be above suspicion, cannot be said to be
faulty at least in this regard.”
5. The Full Bench had very categorically held that the rule which had
been projected before the Full bench categorising persons, who were
involved in a criminal case and those were not involved in criminal case,
must be upheld and it had been stated that the persons, who are recruited to
the police should not preferably have any case registered against them.
6. On the side of the respondents, further reliance had been placed on
the Judgment reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 [ Avtar Singh Vs. Union of
India] wherein it had been held by the Supreme Court as follows:-
“No doubt about it that verification of
character and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to assess suitability and it is open to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent,
but ultimate action should be based upon
objective criteria on due consideration of all the
relevant aspects.”
7. It is thus clear that the petitioner cannot claim right of appointment
and that too when a subsequent recruitment procedure had been conducted.
On the date when the petitioner had applied and stood considered for
selection, he was unfortunately categorised as an accused. Subsequently,
the acquittal was not based because the prosecution was not able to establish
the case but owing to the witnesses turning hostile. I am not inclined to
issue Mandamus. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
25.02.2025
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Director General Police
Mylapore, Chennai – 04.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Salem District.
3. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, 71, Adithanar Road, Pudupet,
Komaleeswaranpet, Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
25.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
