Madras High Court
K.Arul vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 10 February, 2021
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
W.P.No.823 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.823 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.886 of 2021
(Heard through VC)
K.Arul .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District.
4.Tamilnadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of
the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/13000/2012 dated 07.08.2018
and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the case of
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.823 of 2021
the petitioner for an appointment to the post of Police Constable in
Tamil Nadu Special Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Francis Xavier
For Respondents- : Mr.J.Pothiraj
1 to 3 Special Government Pleader
For Respondent-4 : Mr.V.Kadhirvelu
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, challenging the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/13000/2012 dated 07.08.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for an appointment to the post of Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police.
2. Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.V.Kadhirvelu, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent No.4. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.823 of 2021
3. The petitioner has involved in a Criminal Case under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and the Criminal Court by order dated 31.10.2012 made in C.C.No.273 of 2012, has acquitted the petitioner and others on the basis of the benefit of doubt. Not satisfied with the judgment of the Criminal Court that the petitioner was acquitted only on benefit of doubt, not on honourable acquittal, he preferred a Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2013, which was allowed on 02.02.2013, wherein, the Court has modified the order of acquittal 'on benefit of doubt' as one of 'honourable acquittal'.
4. The petitioner has made an application to the post of Grade II Constable and he has not disclosed about the involvement of the Criminal Case. Admittedly, in the application, in the column “Whether there was any Criminal Case pending with regard to registration of Criminal Case or pendency of the same” the petitioner marked as “No”. According to the respondents, the petitioner has suppressed the fact of his involvement in the Criminal Case intentionally and thus he is not entitled to the relief as sought for.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.823 of 2021
5. The petitioner has questioned the order of cancellation of selection by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.8791 of 2013 and this Court, by a detailed order dated 09.05.2017, has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the person having Criminal Case background, cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade-II. According to this Court, the petitioner's appointment has not been approved, as the petitioner was having a Criminal Case history. The case of the petitioner is that, as he has been honourably acquitted, has got to be considered, as if there is no Criminal Case. But, while filing up the application, it is the duty of the petitioner to inform that a case has been foisted on him and he has been honourably acquitted. Had it been stated, the petitioner would have a better case before the learned Single Judge. In this case, the petitioner already had the benefit of adverse order and he cannot re- agitate the same issue merely because some other person has got a benefit of the order in W.A.No.3877 of 2019. If the petitioner has got any grievance, it is open to him to move before the Division Bench for relief and he cannot file a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action, as the issue has already been concluded between the parties in W.P.No.8791 of 2013 on 09.05.2017. As stated supra, 'honourable acquittal' has got to be taken as no Criminal Case against the person, 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.823 of 2021 but this should have been stated by the petitioner in the application that a case was foisted against him and he has been honourably acquitted and in view of the same, it is deemed that no criminal history against the petitioner at all.
6. Since there is a suppression of fact, the petitioner may not be entitled to the relief as sought for. More so, when the issue has already been concluded on 09.05.2017 in W.P.No.8791 of 2013, unless and until the petitioner is able to get that order set aside, no orders could be passed in this writ petition, as it is hit by the principles of res judicata.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.02.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking order : Yes/No
rsi/asr
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.823 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi/asr
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District.
4.The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
W.P.No.823 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.886 of 2021 10.02.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/