Madras High Court
The Chairman vs V.Vasanth on 25 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD).No.439 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.(MD).No.439 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3117 of 2020 and 26 of 2022
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board,
807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
V.Vasanth ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:46 pm )
W.A.(MD).No.439 of 2020
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
judgment dated 08.01.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.24995 of 2018 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Ms.M.Gobika
for Mr.D.Balamurugapandi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Appeal has been instituted challenging the order passed in W.P.
(MD).No.24995 of 2018 dated 08.01.2019.
2. Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu
Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for selection and appointment to the
post of Grade II Police Constable, the respondent participated in the process of
selection.
3. The respondent was successful in the written examination and during
the certificate verification, the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding
registration of a criminal case against him. He has filled up the verification roll
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:46 pm )
form and in Column 15, he has stated that there is no criminal case against him.
But the fact remains that a criminal case was registered against him in Crime
No.135/2018 under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of
PPDL Act. The respondent was an accused in the said criminal case. In yet
another case in Crime No.107/2018 also, the respondent is arrayed as A2. But,
the respondent has not furnished the details regarding the registration of
criminal case in the verification form signed by him. Citing the said
suppression of fact in the verification form, the District Police Office rejected
the candidature of the respondent for selection to the post of Grade II Police
Constable.
4. The Writ Court considered the case of the respondent mainly on the
ground that there is no application of mind on the part of the authorities while
rejecting the candidature of the respondent by passing the impugned order.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants
would submit that the Inspector of Police, Kamudhi Police Station colluded
with the respondent for deleting the name of the respondent from the name of
the accused in the criminal case. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the Inspector of Police based on the report submitted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:46 pm )
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mudukulathur Sub Division dated
12.03.2020.
6. May that as it be, the fact remains that two criminal cases are
registered against the respondent. The appellants have produced the application
form as well as the verification form signed by the respondent. Though the
criminal case was registered subsequently after signing the application form,
the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal
case in the verification form, wherein, a question was asked whether any
criminal case has been registered against him or not.
7. Suppression of fact is a ground for rejection of candidature. The
selection is to the post of Grade II Police Constable in Uniformed Services.
Even if a candidate has not suppressed the fact regarding the registration of
criminal case, still the Selection Committee is empowered to assess the
antecedents of a person for selection to the post of Uniformed Services. It is a
disciplined force and character and antecedents are of paramount importance.
The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again reiterated that selection to Uniformed
Services are to be made by the Committee and the decision of the Committee
becomes final since it involves verification of antecedents of a person. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:46 pm )
Court cannot substitute the views of the Selection Committee in such matters,
where the Committee formed an opinion that a particular candidate is not fit for
Uniformed Services. Therefore, the reason stated by the Writ Court that there is
no application of mind, seems to be incorrect. The file produced before this
Court would show that the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding
registration of a criminal case against him. Thus, the writ order dated
08.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD).No.24995 of 2018 is infirm and consequently,
the same is set aside.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.)
25.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:46 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.
Lm
25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 04:24:46 pm )
