Madras High Court
S.R.Sujith vs The Director General Of Police on 26 March, 2013
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/03/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P(MD)No.474 of 2013 W.P(MD)Nos. 553, 1250, 1290 1994, 2076, 2089, 2096, 2184, 2194, 2203, 2244, 2275, 2299, 2309, 2326, 2358, 2367, 2403, 2430, 2496, 2504, 2523, 2530, 2544, 2706, 2784, 2864, 2908, 2913, 3051, 3056, 3257, 3313, 3371, 3448, 3514, 3732 and 3807 of 2013 & M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 2, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, 3, 3 and 4 of 2013 S.R.Sujith ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arumamani Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.474 of 2013 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned order issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.N3/51150/2012, dated 20.12.2012 and quash the same and further direct the second and fourth respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Constable in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in his order of seniority. !For Petitioner ... M/s.S.Arunachalam Associates ^For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Bogabooman ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chenai-600 004. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.553 of 2013 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 17.08.2012 made in Ko.Mu.No.54863/Niyamanam 1(2)2012 and Ni.Mu.No.40205/Niyamanam 1(2)/2011 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and further directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner for the post of Police Constable Grade II. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** R.Pravinkumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 002. Represented by its Secretary 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Karungal, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No1250 of 2013.: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to his order in Na.Ka.No.N3/51150/2012, dated 20.12.2012 on his file, quash the same, directing the respondents to select the petitioner, having Reg.No.3201982, as Grade II Police Constable in the Grade II Police Constable Selection 2012 and appoint the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Thampi For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** J.Sankar Mani : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvarayar Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai 625 007 : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.1290 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.B1/19500/2012, dated 18.12.2012 and quash the same as illegal, consequently, directing the respondents to issue appointment order for being appointed as Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** S.Kalaiselvan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1994 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 06.12.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.A3/9999/2012, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable Grade II. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guhan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** S.Vijayan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2076 of 2013.: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 06.12.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.A3/9999/2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable Grade II. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guhan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** G.Veilumuthu : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uninformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvarayan Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-02. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2089 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A- 2(1)/26187/2012, dated 22.01.2013, quash the same as illegal, violation of principles of law and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Grade II Police Constable (Armed Reserve) in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services within the stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** C.Sivasankara Muneeswaran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-2. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar district,. Virudhunagar. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2096 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.A- 2(1)/26187/2012, dated 22.01.2013 on the third respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukarasu For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** R.Ramar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Home Department, St. George Fort, Chennai. 2.The Chairman/Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee. Chenguluaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 3.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2184 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/12999/2012, dated 15.12.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** Rajesh : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Sengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2194 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.B1/19500/2012, dated 12.12.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner for his selection as Grade II Police constable, in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board-2012. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Naengdran For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** Jeyaram.R : Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, P.T.Lee., Chengalvaraya Naicker Building, No.807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Represented by its Member Secretary, P.T. Lee.,Chengalvaraya Naicker Building, No.807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 5.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2203 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 5th respondent, dated 12.12.2012 in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/212 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable pursuant to the recruitment process of the year 2012 held by the second respondent with all other consequential and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** S.Ganesa Moorthy [Reg. No.2802096] : Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 0089. 2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-4. 5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents Prayer W.P.(MD)No.2244 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order made in Na.Ka.No.A3/12999/2012, dated 09.01.2013 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to recruit the petitioner either in the post of Grade II Police Constable or in the post of Grade II Jail Warders/Firemen for the year 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Balamurugan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Sengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2275 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.12.2012 in Na.Ka.No.A3/12999/2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner for his selection as Grade II Police Constable, in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board-2-12 in the existing vacancies of the current years. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veeranasamy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** S.Sudalaipandian : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, P.T. Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Building, No.807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2299 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 12.12.2012, quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** R.Ganesa Perumal : Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2309 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/12, dated 12.12.2012 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable within the time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** V.Kaliraj : Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Director General of Police, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2326 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 14.12.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to appoint the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable or if the above post was filled up by the authorities, to which he was selected by the time, the first respondent may be directed to appoint the petitioner as and when vacancy arises for the above said post or any post carrying the same scale of pay which requires for the same qualification, which is is earlier. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subbaraj For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** G.Murugan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2358 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Grade-II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** Baskaran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, 2nd Floor, Annasalai, Chennai-2. 2.The District Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2367 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide in Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** S.Uthayarasu : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Annal Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2403 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.A3/12999/2012, dated 09.01.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Gr.II Police Constable for the year 2012 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Muthukrishnan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Sengalvarayar Naicker Maligam Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No2430 of 2013.: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner for his selection as Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board-2012. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nagendran For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** A.Sutharsan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Annal Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in the impugned order of disqualification for appointment issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013 to the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constables/Grade II Jail Warders/Firemen in pursuance of the examination conducted by the first respondent in Common Recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables/Grade-II Jail Warders/Firemen-2012. For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Raju : Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. Nagercoil. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2504 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.N3/51150/2012, dated 20.12.2012 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable within the time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** A.Rajakumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2523 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Mariappan : Petitioner vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, 807, II Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tiruneveli. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2530 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2012 vide his Proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, 12.12.2012 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2012 alone with his batch mates within the time limit. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** V.Marikumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli-2. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2544 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 21.01.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to recruit the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable in the vacancy notified by the 1st respondent for the year 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Thesigan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Govindan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvarayar Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2706 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2012 with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.S.Murugan Government Advocate *** P.Anantha Raja : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2784 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records the order in Na.Ka.No.A2(1)/26187/2012, dated 22.01.2013 issued by the third respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to recruit the petitioner as Grade II Constable of Tamil Nadu Police as per application No.2504569. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkateseshan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** Jeyakumar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The District Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2864 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide in Na.Ka.No.A3/11758/2012, dated 24.01.2013 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** R.Veerapandian : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvarayar Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.2908 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/43879/2012, dated 09.12.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to declare the petitioner as selected candidate for the post of Grade II Police Constable (Tamil Nadu Special Police) in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment for the year 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel Alias Sekar For 1st respondent : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohidheen Government Advocate For 2nd respondent : Mr.S.Murugan Government Advocate *** N.Jagadeesh : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, 3.The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2913 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 12.12.2012, quash the same and direct the respondents to select the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Grade II Jail Wardens and Firemen for the year 2012. For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Anandhavalli For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader For 3rd respondent : Mr.S.Murugan Government Advocate *** A.Dysun Durai : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. Tirunelveli. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3051 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 12.12.2012 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Grade II Constable of Police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** P.Prabakaran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naickser Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, O/o.Director General of Police Head Office, Chennai-04. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3056 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A-2(1)/26187/2012, dated 22.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable in the Common Recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables/Grade-II Jail Warders/Firemen-2012. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahendran For Respondents : Mr.Aaiyram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate *** P.Benjamin Britto : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 2.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, No.807, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3257 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A9/9797/192/2012-6, dated 06.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable in the Common Recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables/Grade-II Jail Wardens/Fireman-2012. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraj For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate *** Jacky Chan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3313 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in a Na.Ka.No.P1/19500/2012, dated 24.12.2012 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manickam For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate *** R.Prabhu : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee. Chengalvarayar Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3371 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Grade II Police Constable based on the Recruitment for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable (Men and Women)/Grade II Jail Warders and Foremen (Men)-2012 in Advertisement No.112 issued by the 1st respondent based on the Provisional Selection List for Medical Examinations and Police Verification for Sivagangai District(Registration NO.2900102)(81-AR) within a time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** K.Karuppasamy Pandian : Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thirunelveli District, Thirunelveli. : Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3448 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 12.12.2012 pending on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal, consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Second Grade Constable (AR). For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For 1st respondent : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader For R2 to R4 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader *** B.Surendran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 3.The District Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3514 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to select the petitioner, herein who passed in the written examination, Physical and Medical Test, for the post of TSP for the year 2012 under Advertisement No.112 given by the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ghandiraj For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader **** U.Santhana Bharathy : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Police Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai. 3.The Director General of Police, Santhome, Chennai-600 004. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3732 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.37131/EW1/2012, dated 07.02.2013 so far as the petitioner's concerned and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II,Jail Warden 2012 in Madurai City. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** M.Arumuga Nainar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3807 of 2013: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.A4/30493/2012, dated 12.12.2012 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** :COMMON ORDER
In all these cases, the petitioners successfully passed the written examination and also qualified in the physical test. Thereafter, they were informed that their applications were rejected on the ground that they suppressed their involvement in the criminal cases in their applications as well as in the verification roll and therefore, they were not selected for Grade II Police Constable and the same is challenged in these writ petitions.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in the Full Bench judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, the Hon'ble Full Bench held that as per Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service and the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either of his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case, having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(3) SCALE 606 : (2011)4 MLJ 1006(SC) in the matter of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(6) CTC 440 (SC), in the matter of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P & others and in the judgment reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68(SC) in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the issue, whether a person can be disqualified on the ground of suppression of particulars in the application form or in the verification roll in the matter of appointment to the Larger Bench, the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of our High Court reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, should not be taken into consideration for rejecting the application and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Grade II Police Constable is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
3.The learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that though in many cases, the petitioners were involved having committed offences under Indian Penal Code, they were acquitted and latter, the acquittal was modified into honourable acquittal and therefore, once the petitioners were honourably acquitted of the charges, no stigma is attached to them and therefore, the suppression of those cases, either in the application form or in the verification roll should not be put against the petitioners in the light of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above.
4.Some of the petitioners counsel also submitted that some petitioners were not involved in the cases and their names were initially included in the FIR and thereafter, their names were omitted while filing charge sheet and therefore, those persons cannot be said to be involved in the criminal cases and therefore, the rejection of those persons cannot be amount to suppression of material facts.
5.It is also submitted that in two cases, the petitioners were Juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and they were also arrayed as accused and therefore, having regard to section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, they shall not suffer any disqualification, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law and therefore, they cannot be guilty of suppression of fact in the application form.
6.It is also submitted by the learned counsels for some of the petitioners that some petitioners were involved in the criminal cases under the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Police Act and the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, paid fine and some of them were also released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence, it cannot be stated that they are having bad antecedents and they are guilty of suppression of material particulars, while submitting the application as well as in the verification roll.
7.It is also submitted that some petitioners disclose their involvement in criminal cases in the application form and in respect of some persons, at the time of submitting the applications, there was no case pending against them and latter, cases were foisted against them and they were also acquitted in all those cases and therefore, having regard to the fact that all the petitioners were honourably acquitted and they did not suffer any disqualification and therefore, the rejection of those persons' application on the ground of suppression of material particulars in the application form as well as in the verification roll cannot be a ground for rejecting their applications.
8.Mr.A.Thirumurthy, the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that having regard to the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the issue, whether a person suffered any disqualification or whether a person should be denied chance of getting employment by reason of suppression of involvement in the criminal case in the application form or in the verification roll to the Larger Bench as per the judgment reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68 (SC), in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and others, till the Larger Bench decides that issue, the petitioners should not be denied the opportunity of serving in the police force and also relied upon the judgment reported in (2004)13 SCC 3, in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and others.
9.He also relied upon the judgment reported in 1996(2) LLJ 703(SC) in the matter of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & another and submitted that in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the nature of offence and also the expression 'Moral Turpitude' and held that unless the offence is of such nature, which can be brought under the caption 'Moral Turpitude', a person cannot be denied the opportunity of getting selected in the police force and therefore, the order of the respondents in rejecting the application is liable to be set aside.
10.Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who is appearing for some of the respondents, in these writ petitions, submitted that law has been finally laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97( supra) and the Hon'ble Full Bench, after considering all the earlier judgments, including the judgments reported in 1996(II)LLJ 703 (SC) in the matter of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & another, 2007(12) SCALE 539 in the matter of R.Radhakrishnan, vs. The Director General of Police and after considering the provisions of Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 held that even though, a person was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in a criminal case, he can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police force and the failure of that person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case and therefore, even though the petitioners were honourably acquitted by this court, having regard to the suppression of involvement in the criminal case, the rejection of their application is valid as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court.
11.He further submitted that as per Explanation (2) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 even if a person was honourably acquitted or the case, in which he was involved was referred as 'Mistake of Fact', they were treated as 'not involved in a criminal case' and they can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim right of appointment in the present recruitment and they are entitled to participate in the next recruitment to be conducted by the respondents.
12.He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011(6)CTC 440, in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others, interpreted the Government Order, dated 28.04.1958 on the subject 'Verification of the character and antecedents of Government Servants before their first appointment', wherein a duty was cast on the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself about the suitability of the candidate and having regard to that particular order, held that the Appointing Authority without considering, whether a person is suitable for the post, having regard to the involvement in the criminal case and without giving opportunity to the petitioners, rejected the application and therefore, set aside the order of rejection. He, therefore, submitted that the facts of that case reported in 2011(6) CTC 440 [Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Others] cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases and in these cases before this court, Rule 14(b)(iv) specifically says that a candidate should not be involved in a criminal case before police verification and as per clause 14(b)(ii), the character and antecedents of the persons should be such as to qualify him/them for police service and further in the verification roll, the petitioners were directed to give answer to column 15, 16 and 18 about their involvement in the criminal case or whether they were arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or to pay a fine in any criminal or other offences and whether any civil or criminal cases are pending against them and in respect of those questions, against all the petitioners have given the answer 'No' by falsely suppressing their involvement or the case filed against them for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and therefore, having regard to the suppression of those material particulars, they are not qualified to be appointed for that posts. He further submitted that in the judgment reported in 2011(3) SCALE 606, in matter of Commissioner of Police & others vs. Sandeep Kumar, cannot also be relied upon by the petitioners as the facts of that case are entirely different. In the case of Sandeep Kumar, the petitioner disclosed in the attestation form about his involvement, though he suppressed the same in the application form and considering the same and also the fact that Special Leave Petition was filed by the Commissioner of Police against the order of the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court and therefore, the said case cannot be applied to the facts of the cases.
13.He further submitted that even though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the issue to a Larger Bench, that cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners and till, a final verdict is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 and other judgments have to be taken into consideration to decide the issue and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right to the appointment and the rejection cannot be challenged as illegal.
14.The learned Special Government Pleader, Government Advocate and the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents also submitted their argument in the same line as submitted by the learned Additional Pleader, Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohidheen.
15.On going through the factual aspects of each case, the cases can be categorised as follows:-
1.Petitioners disclosing the involvement, either in the application or during police verification;
2.At the time of submitting application, no case was pending and the case was registered thereafter;
3.Though, the cases were registered, subsequently the names of the petitioners were omitted from the charge sheet or the cases were referred to as 'Mistake of Fact';
4.The petitioners involvement in petty offences like section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act;
5.The petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of the offence;
and
6.The petitioners were initially acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, as the witnesses turned hostile and latter, in revision the petitioners were honourably acquitted and they have not mentioned about the criminal case, either in the application form or in the verification roll.
16.The petitioners in the following cases have disclosed, either in the application form or during medical test or verification roll about their involvement in the criminal cases and they come under the 1st category as stated above.
01.W.P(MD)No.2244 of 2013 02.W.P(MD)No.2089 of 2013 03.W.P(MD)No.2184 of 2013 04.W.P(MD)No.2326 of 2013 05.W.P(MD)No.2530 of 201306.W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2013-Not in the FIR & charge sheet
17.In respect of the following cases, no case was registered against the petitioners at the time of submitting the application and they come under the 2nd category as stated above.
01.W.P(MD)No.2864 of 2013 02.W.P(MD)No.2908 of 201318.In the following cases, the petitioners names were omitted from the charge sheet, though they were named as an accused in the FIR and they come under the 3rd category as stated above.
01.W.P(MD)No.2403 of 2013 02.W.P(MD)No.2544 of 2013 03.W.P(MD)No.2309 of 2013 04.W.P(MD)No.2367 of 2013 05.W.P(MD)No.2523 of 251319.The following petitioners were involved in petty offences, like under section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act and section 160 IPC and they come under the 4th category as stated above.
01.W.P(MD)No.2504 of 2013 u/s.75 TN City Police Act
02.W.P(MD)No.474 of 2013 u/s.75 TN City Police Act
03.W.P(MD)No.2203 of 2013 u/s.75 TN City Police Act
04.W.P(MD)No.2784 of 2013 u/s.12 TN Gaming Act
05.W.P.(MD)No.3807 of 2013 u/s.160 IPC
20.Among the aforesaid persons, the petitioners in W.P(MD)No.474 of 2013 was let out under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.1290 of 2013 and 2430 of 2013 were juveniles at the time of commission of the offence and they come under the fifth category. In respect of rest of the cases, the petitioners were initially acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and latter, the acquittal was modified as honourable acquittal.
21.According to me, the petitioners coming under the 1st five categories as stated above stand on different footing from other persons. The petitioners coming under the 1st category have disclosed, either in the application form or during medical test or verification roll about their involvement in the criminal case and in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3514 of 2013, his name was not at all mentioned in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Sandeep Kumar's case, the petitioners coming under the 1st category might have omitted to mention about their involvement in the criminal case in the application form and latter, mentioned in the verification roll or during medical test and therefore, such persons cannot be held guilty of wilful suppression of fact. Similarly, the persons coming under the 2nd category cannot be held guilty of suppression of fact, as no case was pending against them at the time of submitting the application form or during verification roll. In so far as the petitioners coming under the 3rd category of cases, though their names were mentioned in the FIR, latter their names were omitted while filing the charge sheet or the cases were referred as 'Mistake of Fact' and therefore, those persons cannot be said to have involved in the criminal cases, as they were exonerated from the charges after investigation. Therefore, those persons coming under the 3rd category cannot also be held guilty of suppression of facts. The persons coming under the categories 4 and 5, namely persons involved in Petty Offences, cannot also be denied of selection on the simple ground that they have suppressed their involvement, considering the nature of the offence in which they were found guilty. Further, the petitioners who were juveniles at the time of committing of offences cannot also be denied selection, considering the section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Therefore, in my opinion, the persons coming under the 1st five categories cannot be found guilty of suppression of facts, either in the application form or in the verification roll and rejection of those candidates cannot be justified.
22.In so far as WP(MD)No.2358 of 2013, the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that he suppressed his employment in CRPF, though he resigned latter from CRPF. According to me, the case of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.2358 of 2013 stands on different footing and his application ought not have been rejected on the ground of suppression of fact.
23.In respect of others, though some of the petitioners were honourably acquitted, considering the nature of offence, in my opinion, that makes no difference, as they have suppressed about their involvement in the criminal cases while submitting the application or filling up their verification roll. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners were honourably acquitted cannot be a ground for allowing the petitions as they have suppressed about their involvement in the criminal case in the application as well as in the verification roll. Nevertheless, we will have to find out, whether the application of such persons can be rejected on the ground of suppression of fact about their involvement in the criminal case in the light of the judgments referred to above.
24.As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court has dealt with the entire case law as on the date of delivery of that judgment and interpreted the Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rule, 1978 and held as follows:-
.."We hold-
(a)that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a Criminal Case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and
(b)That the failure of a person to disclose in the Application form, either his involvement in a Criminal Case or the pendency of a Criminal Case against him, would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the Criminal Case."
25.While arriving at that conclusion, the Hon'ble Full Bench has considered the case of T.S.Vasudevan Nair [1988 (Supp) SCC 795 and Pawan Kumar [(1996)4 SCC 17, (1996)11 SCC 605, in the matter of Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar, 2007(12) SCALE 539 in the matter of R.Radhakrishnan vs. The Director General of Police & others and distinguished the case reported in (1999)1 SCC 246, in the matter of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & another vs. Dhaval Singh and Pawan Kumar's case. In the Full Bench judgment, Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 was considered in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments and finally, the Full Bench held that suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in a criminal case, would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject the application.
26.Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the same issue in the following cases:-
01.2011(6)CTC 440, in the matter of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P & others;
02.2011(2)LLN 34(SC) in the matter of Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of India and others; and 03.2011(4) MLJ 1006(SC) : 2011(3) SCALE 606 in the matter of the Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar.
27.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred the issue to the Larger Bench in the judgment rendered in (2012)7 MLJ 68 (SC) in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and Others, whether the suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in a criminal case can be a ground to reject the application for appointment in the police force. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered, after the Hon'ble Full Bench judgment of this court, we will have to see whether the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners can be sustained.
28.As stated supra, in the Full Bench judgment reported in 2008(2)CTC 97, the Hon'ble Full Bench analysed the entire case law in threadbare and having regard to the provision of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the character of a person has to be considered for appointment for police force and held as follows:-
"Therefore, we hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the Application form is filled up, is fatal. His subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise."
29.In Sandeep Kumar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the applicant did not mention about his involvement in a criminal case, he might not have mentioned the same out of fear on the bona-fide impression that if he did so, he would automatically be disqualified and further held that it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape and therefore, a more lenient view should be taken in such matter and refused to interfere with the order of the High Court, allowing the writ petition filed by the applicant and dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Police. In that case, in the application form, the petitioner in that case, did not mention about the involvement, but in the attestation form, he disclosed the same and a show cause notice was issued to him and his selection was cancelled and that was set aside by the High Court and then by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the age of the petitioner and observed as follows:-
"When the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age, young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives."
30.In the case of Ram Kumar's case [2011(6) CTC 440] as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the Government Order, dated 28.04.1958 of the U.P. Government, wherein the following instructions were issued:-
"The Rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:-
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be duty of the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself on this point."
While considering the same, it was held that the Appointing Authority has to satisfy about the suitability of the candidature, having regard to his involvement in a criminal case and without considering the same, the application should not have been rejected and set aside the rejection order.
31.In the case of Daya Shankar Vyadav vs. Union of India & others [2011(2) LLN 34(SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme court interpreted the clause 16, in the verification roll, which is similar to clause 16 of the verification roll filled up by the petitioners and held after relying upon the judgment reported in 2008(1) SCC 660 : 2007(12)SCALE 539 in the matter of R.Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of Police and 2008(11)SCC 314 in the matter of Union of India vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen held that the suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in the criminal case will render the applicant disqualified for appointment. Therefore, except Pawan Kumar's case and Sandeep Kumar's case, in all other cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent stand that the suppression of particulars regarding the involvement in a criminal case, either in the application form or in the verification roll justify the rejection of the application by the authorities.
32.Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the conflict views taken by the coordinate Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of suppression particulars of involvement in a criminal case, in the judgement reported in 2010(2) MLJ 508(SC) in the matter of Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and 2011 (6)CTC 440 : 2011(4) MLJ 1006(SC) in the matter of the Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, decided to refer the issue to the Larger Bench. Therefore, the fate of the petitioners can be decided, in my view, on the basis of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those matters. In the event of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comes to a conclusion that suppression of such particulars in the application form or in the verification roll regarding the involvement in criminal case would not render the person disqualified on that account and directing the Department to take the merits of the case of each individual, considering the nature of the offence for appointment and if these petitions were dismissed at this stage, that would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners.
33.Further, there is a saying 'every saint had a past, every thief has a future. Further, the petitioners are involved in the offences under sections 323, 324, 506(i), 506(ii) & 325 IPC and such offences cannot be held to be serious and some of the petitioners were fined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act. The offences are only petty in nature and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgement reported in Pawan Kumar's case, those offences cannot be brought under 'Moral Turpitude' and when those offences cannot be brought under the caption 'Moral Turpitude', it cannot be advisable to hold that the suppression of those particulars in the application form a serious one. In this connection, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Pawan Kumar's case [1996(II) LLJ 703, (SC)] is relevant and it is as follows:-
"Before concluding this judgement, we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large number of cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea- bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provisions need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs.2000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in government service, this can brook no delay, whatsoever.
34.Further, the Government has given pardon to hardcore criminals, naxalites, when they surrendered and undertook to lead a normal life respecting the law of the land and having regard to their reformation, those persons were given appointment in the police force. When such persons were given appointments in the police force, in my opinion, the petitioners can also be given appointment in the police force, considering their age and their age at the time of involvement in the criminal cases and the fact that they were acquitted on the ground that no offence was made against them and they were also honourably acquitted. Considering the fact that the offences, in which there were involved could not be characterised as offences, involving Moral Turpitude and such persons must be given chance to reform themselves, in my opinion, the respondents can take final decision on the basis of the judgment by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, it is always open to the Department to take action against them in the event of their involvement in the criminal cases in future.
35.Considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the issue, whether a person can be denied a job for having suppressed his involvement either in the application form or in the verification roll to the Larger Bench, I set aside the orders of the respondents in rejecting the applications of the petitioners and depending upon the judgment to be rendered by the Larger Bench, it is always open to the respondents to take further action, even after their appointment in the police force. In other-words, the appointment of the petitioners into the police force is depending upon the decision of the Hon'ble Larger Bench of the Supreme Court and till a final verdict is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these persons should not be denied of their chance to serve in the police Department.
36.Therefore, the following writ petitions are allowed. S.No. Case No.
01. W.P.(MD)No.2244 of 2013
02. W.P(MD)No.2089 of 2013
03. W.P(MD)No.2184 of 2013
04. W.P(MD)No.2530 of 2013
05. W.P.(MD)No.3514 of 2013
06. W.P(MD)No.2864 of 2013
07. W.P(MD)No.2908 of 2013
08. W.P(MD)No.2403 of 2013
09. W.P(MD)No.2544 of 2013
10. W.P(MD)No.2309 of 2013
11. W.P(MD)No.2367 of 2013
12. W.P(MD)No.2523 of 2013
13. W.P(MD)No.2504 of 2013
14. W.P(MD)No.474 of 2013
15. W.P(MD)No.2203 of 2013
16. W.P(MD)No.2784 of 2013
17. W.P(MD)No.2326 of 2013
18. W.P.(MD)No.3807 of 2013
19. W.P(MD)No.1290 of 2013
20. W.P(MD)No.2430 of 2013
21. W.P(MD)No.2358 of 2013
37.The following writ petitions are also allowed and the petitioners' selection is subject to the final judgment to be rendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the reference made in the judgment reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68 (SC) in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and Others and in the event of the Hon'ble Supreme court decides that suppression of involvement in the criminal case would dis-entitle the petitioners from getting a job in the police force, their appointment shall liable to be set aside at the discretion of the respondents.
S.No. Case No. 01. W.P(MD)No.3056 of 2013 02. W.P(MD)No.3051 of 2013 03. W.P(MD)No.3313 of 2013 04. W.P(MD)No.2299 of 2013 05. W.P(MD)No.2913 of 2013 06. W.P(MD)No.2096 of 2013 07. W.P(MD)No.2706 of 2013 08. W.P(MD)No.2275 of 2013 09. W.P(MD)No.553 of 2013 10. W.P(MD)No.2194 of 2013 11. W.P(MD)No.1994 of 2013 12. W.P(MD)No.2496 of 2013 13. W.P(MD)No.1250 of 2013 14. W.P(MD)No.3448 of 2013 15. W.P(MD)No.2076 of 2013 16. W.P(MD)No.3371 of 2013 17. W.P(MD)No.3732 of 2013
38.In respect of W.P.(MD)No.3257 of 2013, the petitioner was charged for offences under sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC and though, the petitioner was acquitted in that case, having regard to his involvement for an offence under section 302 IPC, such a person cannot be considered for appointment as Grade II Police Constable and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3257 of 2013 cannot be said to be unjustified and hence, that petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, Second Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.
7.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
8.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
9.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.
10.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.
11.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.