Madras High Court
M.Baragathullah vs The Chairman on 10 November, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2017 Reserved on : 21.12.2016 Delivered on : 10.11.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P(MD).No.15128 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013 M.Baragathullah ... petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, No.1, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Moondrumavadi, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na.ka.No.B1/19500/2012, dated 24.12.2012, on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to recruit the petitioner having Registration No.2416322 for the post of Grade- II Police Constable. !For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.Muthukannan :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na.ka.No.B1/19500/2012, dated 24.12.2012, on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to recruit the petitioner having Registration No.2416322 for the post of Grade-II Police Constable.
2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-
The first respondent had invited applications from the eligible candidates for the selection and appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the year 2012. The petitioner being the graduate, as he had completed B.Com degree, had applied for the said post on 20.04.2012. After scrutiny of application, the petitioner was permitted to write the written examination scheduled to be conducted on 24.06.2012 where the petitioner was assigned the Registration No.2416322. The petitioner obtained 67 marks in the written examination and accordingly, he was selected for the next stage of selection process i.e., physical fitness test.
3. It is the claim of the petitioner that, at the time of making the application, there was no criminal case filed or pending against the petitioner, however after filing the application and before writing the written examination, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.258 of 2012, punishable under Sections 353, 336, 324 and 307 of IPC. However, the petitioner was since permitted to write examination where he obtained 67 marks, he had been called for physical fitness test. At that time, once again a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner at Keezhavalavu Police Station in Crime No.143 of 2012, punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. It is also the claim of the petitioner that, in both aforesaid cases, though the petitioner had not involved, he was roped in by the concerned Police for the reasons best known to them. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for medical examination where he attended and after medical examination, he was declared to be fit for joining the service. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for certificate/records verification as well as registering of finger prints. The petitioner attended the said certificate verification session and handed over all those documents required by the respondents, where, the petitioner had honestly disclosed that, after submitting application and before certificate verification, the petitioner had been roped in two criminal cases as aforesaid.
5. Though the said two cases, according to the petitioner, had been roped in against the petitioner, there was no charge sheet filed or pending and no conviction to that effect, however, the third respondent instead of giving posting orders to the petitioner, as the petitioner has successfully cleared all the stages of selection process including the medical examination, passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2012, stating that, because of the pendency of the aforesaid two criminal cases, the conduct and character of the petitioner was not satisfactory to the employer and therefore, his candidature for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable was rejected.
6. It is also the claim of the petitioner that, since the pendency of two cases aforesaid, that too after filing the application and commencement of selection process, shall not stand in the way of giving posting to the petitioner, as he had been admittedly cleared all the examinations such as written examination, physical fitness test, medical examination etc., He also claimed that the embargo said to have been placed against the petitioner's candidature, according to the respondents, is the amendment made to Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, by virtue of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.101, Home (Police-IX) Department, dated 30.01.2003, which shall no way be made applicable to the candidature of the petitioner. Therefore, explaining all these positions, the petitioner had sent a representation to the respondents on 17.01.2013. Since no reply was given and nothing positively was forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner having found no other alternative remedy, has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing the present writ petition, seeking for the aforesaid prayer.
7. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it is stated that, though the petitioner has passed in written, physical and medical test, he cannot claim appointment as Grade-II Police Constable, unless the petitioner satisfy Rule 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (herein after referred to as the Rules). The counter would further state that though at the time of making the application, the petitioner not involved in any criminal case, subsequently after making the application, the petitioner involved in a criminal case, which was registered against him on 06.06.2012 at Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District, in Crime No.258 of 2012 under the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353, 336, 324 and 307 IPC where the investigation completed and a charge sheet also in PRC No.2 of 2014 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathoor, Sivagangai District.
8. The counter further stated that, the petitioner without disclosing this factor had participated in written examination. Subsequent to the said written examination, the petitioner had also involved in the second criminal case where the case was registered at Keezhavalavu Police Station in Crime No.143 of 2012, punishable under Sections 147, 148, 329, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC along with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The said case was registered on 27.07.2012.
9. The counter further states that, in Crime No.258 of 2012, the allegation against the petitioner was that, he assaulted one Training Sub Inspector and therefore the case was registered against him where he was arrested and had been in judicial custody for few days. In so far as the second case is concerned, i.e., Crime No.143 of 2012 at Keezhavalavu Police Station, it was the allegation against the petitioner that, he was in drunken mood and went to Kariapatti Adidravidar Colony with deadly weapons like arivaal and knife and he instigated violence. Therefore, the case was registered on complaint and this case is also pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Mellur. The Counter would further state that, in view of explanations 1 and 2 of Clause iv of Sub Section 14(b) of the Rule, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a fit candidate to be appointed as Grade-II Police Constable.
10. The counter would therefore state and conclude that, in view of the Rule position i.e., Rule 14(b), the petitioner, though had cleared the various stages of selection process such as written test, physical fitness test and medical test, was not selected for the appointment, because of the pendency of the criminal cases. Therefore, the impugned order issued by the third respondent rejecting the petitioner's candidature for selection to the said post, because of the said reason of pendency of criminal cases, is strictly in consonance with the relevant rule. Therefore, against the said impugned order no illegality or infirmity can be found out as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Muthukannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
12. On factual matrix, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for selection and appointment to the post of Grade- II Police Constable for which selection process was undertaken by the first respondent. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the calling for applications, the petitioner being an eligible candidate, applied to the first respondent and accordingly, registration number was assigned to him and he was permitted to take part in the written examination. However, before he writes the written examination, he allegedly involved in a criminal case where FIR was filed against him and he was arrested and had been in judicial custody for some time. Thereafter, on his release on bail, he written the examination and as he has become successful.
13. It is also a fact that, after he successfully cleared the written examination, he was sent for next stage of selection i.e., physical fitness test and thereafter medical examination. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner allegedly involved in another criminal case where also FIR has been registered against him and according to the respondents, both the cases are pending and in respect of the first case, charge sheet also filed before the concerned Magistrate Court. In this regard, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner at the time of making the application had no criminal case pending against him. The subsequent registration of two cases against the petitioner also was purposeful roping of the petitioner in those two cases without actual involvement of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has honestly disclosed these factors that, there were two cases registered against him subsequent to the filing of the application, before the respondents, at the time of certificate verification.
14. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that, once the application was filed and the same was started scrutinising by the respondents, then it can be construed that the selection process commenced. The selection process so commenced will end only at the final stage of selection and appointment of the candidature concerned. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner had been involving in any criminal case even prior to the time of making the application, that can alone be considered as bar. However, in this case, since no case was pending at the time of making the application, where the selection process commenced, it cannot be construed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get selection because of pendency of criminal cases.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that, the petitioner at the time of certificate verification, honestly disclosed the filing of two criminal cases against him, that too after the selection process commenced, before the certificate verification. Merely based on the said disclosure made by the petitioner honestly, the third respondent has mistakenly invoked Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Rules and accordingly, rejected the candidature of the petitioner through the impugned order, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not in consonance with the said rule itself.
16. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, though the petitioner had applied to the post of Grade-II Police Constable to the first respondent recruitment board, pursuant to the invitation of application called for by the said respondent and also that the petitioner was qualified to compete with in the said examination and also the fact that, at the time of making such application, the petitioner not involved in any criminal case and no criminal case whatsoever was pending against him, the said position was subsequently got changed before he writes the written examination.
17. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, based on the complaint filed by the trainee Sub Inspector of Police attached with Thiruppathoor Police Station of Sivakangai District, where the petitioner and others got red handed when they involved in a crime, the case had been booked against him and they had been sent for judicial custody. However, without disclosing these factors, the petitioner had written examination and thereafter, he was permitted to participate in the physical fitness test as well as medical examination.
18. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had involved in the second crime where a case had been registered against the petitioner at Keezhavalavu Police Station. These two factors were brought to the notice of the third respondent at the time of police verification, as the concerned officer who has completed the police verification at the native place of the petitioner as well as other relevant area, had submitted a report that the petitioner had involved in these two criminal cases which are pending against him. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in view of the specific bar available in Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Rules, the petitioner cannot be selected, even though he has cleared the written examination, physical fitness test, medical examination, as it is essentially required that the person to become eligible to be selected should not have involved in any criminal case before police verification. In view of the specific bar under the said rule 14(b), the third respondent has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner through the impugned order. Therefore, the said impugned order is fully justifiable and sustainable and requires no interference from this Court, he contended.
19. I have considered the case of the petitioner as well as the respondents and the arguments advanced by both sides through their respective counsels. In fact, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to produce the relevant records before this Court, pursuant to which, records have been produced and I have also perused the said records. On going through the records, I find that, at the time of making the application, the petitioner did not involve in any criminal case. However, subsequently, that is after filing the application before the selection process was over, or atleast before the police verification, admittedly, there were two cases registered against the petitioner. Though it was claimed by the petitioner that he did not involve in those cases and he has been wrongly roped in both the cases, it is for the concerned criminal Court to a take decision in this regard, as to whether or not the petitioner is innocent and has been wrongly roped in this case. Unless and until the criminal Court after trial, comes to a conclusion, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is innocent and he has been wrongly roped in the cases, by the respondents.
20. In respect of the first case, the petitioner himself admits that, he visited the place called Singampunari to attend a temple festival, however he denied the involvement of crime. But as per the complaint of the training Sub Inspector of the police Station of Singampunari, the petitioner had involved in crime punishable under Sections 353, 336, 324 and 307 of IPC. For the said case, it is the claim of the respondents that, charge sheet has been filed and the same also has been taken on file by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, where the trial is still pending.
21. In so far as the second case is concerned, though it was claimed by the petitioner that he had been wrongly roped in the said case, it is the claim of the respondents that, the petitioner had been involving in the said case along with others. Therefore, the second case was registered at Keezhavalavu Police Station where the alleged offences against the petitioner, according to the respondent Police was that, punishable under Section 147, 148, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC as well as offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Whether or not the petitioner really involved in these crimes as alleged by the concerned police, cannot be decided at this stage. However, the ground mainly urged by the petitioner is that, the mere filing of criminal case after filing the application for selection, cannot stand in the way for selecting the candidate for uniformed service.
22. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the Rule 14(b) of the Rules does not apply to the case in hand, as the petitioner admittedly did not have any criminal case pending against him at the time of making application. It is also the claim of the petitioner that, at the time of certificate verification, the petitioner also honestly disclosed the subsequent registration of two cases against the petitioner and therefore in both grounds as provided under Rule 14(b)(iv) explanations 1 and 2, the petitioner's case cannot be put in for making him ineligible or disqualified for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable. In order to advert to the said issue as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, the relevant rule namely Rule 14(b) of the Rule and its validity and the interpretation given therein by this Court, atleast in two decisions, one by a Full Bench of this Court another by a Larger Bench of this Court, can be examined.
23. In this process, let me take first the relevant rule namely Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. The said Rule 14(b) under went an amendment by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.101, Home (Police-IX) Department, dated 30.01.2003. After the amendment, there introduction of Clause (iv) with explanations 1 and 2. The amended rule reads as follows:-
?14(b). No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.
(i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and
(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; and
(iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living.
(iv) that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification.
Explanation (1): 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 person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police Verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.?
24. After the said amendment has been made in the Rule 14(b) by introducing sub Clause (iv) with two explanations, it became abundantly clear that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service i.e., Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services by direct recruitment, unless he satisfy that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification. The words ?before police verification?, is important, as, if at all a candidate made an application for appointment to the post under the said services and at the time of making application if he is not involved in any criminal case, however, subsequently the very same candidate gets involved in a criminal case, whether he would be eligible or entitled to be considered for selection and appointment to the post. In order to answer this question, this Court feels that, the said Clause (iv) has been inserted, where, it has been specifically stated that, he should not have involved in any criminal case before police verification. It means that, in between the filing of application and police verification, if anyone gets involved in criminal case that will make the candidate ineligible to be considered for selection and appointment. Herein the case in hand, exactly the similar situation we are confronting, as the petitioner admittedly at the time of making application did not involve in criminal case.
25. However, after filing application before police verification, the petitioner involved in two criminal cases. Though it was claimed by the petitioner that he has been wrongly roped in those two cases, as held above, the said issue cannot be decided at this stage by this Court because, the innocence on the part of the petitioner has to be proved only before the competent criminal Court, where the cases are pending.
26. It is to be noticed that, subsequent to the amendment made to Rule 14(b) as stated supra, the validity of the said amendment came to be challenged before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court in V.Veeramani and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Chennai and others, reported in 2007 3MLJ 676, has upheld the validity of amended Rule 14(b). However, it seems that, inspite of the rule having been upheld by the learned Judge in the said judgment sited supra (2007 3MLJ 676), number of cases seems to have been filed, where, the earlier two different Division Bench judgments, since were having conflicting view about the applicability of the said embargo against the candidates, who opt to be selected and appointed in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services, the issue was referred to a Full Bench in Manikandan and others Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and others reported in 2008, 2 MLJ, 1203 (FB).
27. The Full Bench after having traced the two decisions of different Division Benches of this Court, as well as the judgment of the learned Judge, who upheld the validity of the amended Rule 14(b), has given an exhaustive judgment. Where, the Full Bench has explained the difference between the persons who are never involved in the criminal cases and the persons who involved in some criminal cases and subsequently became acquitted. In this regard, the following passages of the Full Bench judgment can be usefully referred to hereunder:-
?13. Persons who were never involved in criminal cases, need not be treated as equals to or on par with persons who were involved in criminal cases merely because they are acquitted later, especially in the matter of selection to the Police Service of the State. The classification made between them, is not only reasonable but also has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
25. Thus it is seen that the entire scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, speaks only of acquittal and not of an ?honourable acquittal? or ?acquittal on benefit of doubt.? These concepts appear to have been developed by Courts over the years. But there seems to be a reason for this.
29. Since the concept of ?acquittal is an acquittal?, is an off shoot of the principle of double jeopardy underlying Section 300(1) of the Code, it cannot be imported into service law, where the principle of double jeopardy itself is looked down upon. Therefore, the Explanation 1 to Rule 14(b) of the impugned Rules, treating a person acquitted on benefit of doubt, as a person involved in a criminal case, is only in tune with well settled principles applicable to Service jurisprudence. A person discharged does not even have protection under Section 300 of the Code and hence such a person cannot assail the Explanation 1 to the impugned Rule 14(b).
30. Therefore, we hold, in answer to the first issue referred to the Full Bench, 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.?
28. In this regard, the sanctity of the disciplined force has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 5 MLJ 593 (SC), in the matter of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh and another. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for better appreciation.
?28. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must by a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the screening committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.?
29. Therefore, ultimately the Full Bench has answered the two questions namely whether the amended Rule 14(b) is ultra vires or intra vires to the Constitution and another question as to whether the non disclosure of involvement of criminal cases by the candidate would be a fatal to the candidature for the purpose of recruitment in public services and in this regard, the penultimate paragraphs of the said Full Bench judgment are re- produced hereunder:-
?40. Therefore, in conclusion, we hold that the amended Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services is not ultra vires or unconstitutional. We also hold that the non selection of the writ petitioners or the rejection of their candidatures, by the respondents, either on the basis of their involvement in criminal case or on the basis of the suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid and justified.
In answer to the reference made to the Full Bench, 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.?
30. Subsequently, inspite of the law having been declared by the Full Bench as referred above, some of the similar cases came to be disposed of by learned Single Judges of this Court at a different point of time, where it seems that, a different view has been taken. Therefore, at one point of time, a learned Single Judge once again referred the matter for taking a decision by a Larger Bench, as to whether the law declared by the Full Bench (cited supra) about the constitutional validity of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Rules is a correct law. Accordingly, the Larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted in J.Alex Ponseelan Vs. Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others etc., batch, reported in 2014 (3) MLJ 777 (FB). On behalf of the Bench, the majority view was expressed by the Hon'ble Justice R.Sudhakar, and the Larger Bench also declared that the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan case (cited supra) was a good law. The relevant portion of the Larger Bench decision is extracted hereunder:-
?21. I, therefore, answer the reference in the following:
(i) The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan Vs. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (supra), is a good law.
(ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1 and 2 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules is intra vires of the Constitution, as has already been held by the Full Bench in the Manikandan Vs. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (supra) and by the learned Single Judge in V.Veeramani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra).?
31. Therefore, the law is well settled in this regard, as Rule 14(b)
(iv) with explanations, has been upheld as intra vires to the Constitution by the Full Bench as amplified and reiterated by the Larger Bench as cited supra. Herein the case in hand, no doubt at the time of making the application, the petitioner did not involve in any criminal case. However, subsequent to the making of application and before writing the written examination, the first criminal case was registered against him and subsequently after written examination before the medical examination, the second case was registered against him. The involvement of these two cases had been disclosed by the petitioner himself, as claimed by him, in his affidavit, at the time of certificate verification. In the meanwhile, the report of the police verification also disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the said two cases. Atleast, in one case, charge sheet has been filed and both cases, according to the respondents, are pending before the concerned Magistrate Courts.
32. In this regard, whether the petitioner ultimately to be acquitted or not and even if acquittal is made, whether the said acquittal is Hon'ble acquittal or not, does not matter in so far as the applicability of Rule 14(b) (iv) of the Rule. In this regard, the relevant explanation to Rule 14(b)(iv) can very well be pressed into service in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to explanation 1, even if the petitioner is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, he shall only be treated as the person involved in criminal case. According to the second explanation, if a person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case is yet to be disposed of and subsequently, ended in Hon'ble acquittal or even treated as mistake of fact, it shall be treated as non involvement in a criminal case and in that case he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment. If these explanations to Rule 14(b)(iv) is applied, the natural corollary would be that, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, even if he is ultimately acquitted on the basis of discharge or benefit of doubt or due to the complainant or witness turned hostile, that can also be treated as that the petitioner involved in a criminal case.
33. In the second circumstances, according to the second explanation, even if the petitioner ultimately acquitted honourably or even the case is referred as mistake of fact, though he can be treated as not involving in a criminal case, thereby, he would not be eligible to get appointment in the current recruitment, but only in the subsequent recruitment, by participating the same.
34. Herein the case in hand, admittedly there are cases pending against the petitioner and therefore under Rule 14(b)(iv), he would not be eligible to claim appointment. Assuming that the petitioner has been wrongly or mistakenly roped in criminal cases as claimed by him, that fate can be decided only by the trial Court where cases are pending. Even if ultimately the trial Court acquitted the petitioner, on the ground of benefit of doubt, he shall not be treated as a person not involved in a criminal case. Even if the petitioner ultimately acquitted honorably, though he may be eligible or entitled to claim chance of participating in the next recruitment, he cannot make any claim for the current recruitment for which only the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition.
35. Therefore, looking from any angle, the claim now made by the petitioner that the order impugned rejecting his candidature for having involved in criminal case before police verification, has to be set aside, cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position.
36. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails.
37. In the result, the impugned order requires no interference from this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, No.1, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Moondrumavadi, Madurai.
.