Madras High Court
E.Veeran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 July, 2022
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.2722 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.7.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.2722 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.3164 of 2020
1 E.Veeran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2 The Director General of Police/ Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Old C.O.P. Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Chennai 600008.
3 The Superintendent Of Police
Vellore District Vellore. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 3rd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2(3)/ 3000/ 2017 dated
26.10.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to
select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Constable Grade II under
the Notification No. 117 for the year 2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2722 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Nethaji
For Respondents 1 &o 3 : Mr.P.Ganesan, G.A.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, A.A.G.
Asst. by Mrs.Sowmi Datton
Standing Counsel
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable, passed written examination and physical test conducted by the second respondent and called for Certificate verification on 30.9.2017. That being so, the petitioner received an impugned order dated 26.10.2017 from the third respondent stating that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.965 of 2012 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The aforesaid rejection order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, in the final report filed by the Arcot Police in the aforesaid criminal case, the name of the petitioner was not found. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and direct 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has submitted that pursuant to the notification dated 23.1.2017 issued, the petitioner has applied for the aforesaid post. On the date of submitting application, the petitioner had not disclosed his involvement in the criminal case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.965 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sec.147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. on the file of Arcot Nagar Police Station in the relevant column of the application submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable. As per Rule 14(b) (ii) &
(iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a candidate being selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable should not involved in any criminal case and having good character. The petitioner suppressed the material fact in the application and hence his candidature was rightly rejected by the respondent.
4. This Court has already decided the identical issue in K.Kalaiyazhagan vs. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and two others [W.P.No.3169 of 2022 dated 21.2.2022] wherein this Court held as under:
'' In view of the aforesaid submissions, it appears that 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 the writ petitioner has submitted his application for the post of Constable Gr-II, pursuant to the notification for the year 2020. At that time, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.578 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) of IPC and subsequently, charge sheet was filed in C.C No.13 of 2020 on the file the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti and thereafter, the aforesaid case was ended in acquittal on 09.08.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now, the aforesaid criminal case was ended in acquittal and there is no legal embargo to consider the petitioner's name for selection to the post of Constable Gr-II. To the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Board objected that at the time of submitting his application, the petitioner's name was found to be involved in a criminal case in Crime No.578 of 2019 and subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case in C.C.No.13 of 2020 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti by judgment dated 09.08.2021. Rule 14(2) sub rule (b) (iv) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 clearly states that the application could not be considered for the recruitment and it could be considered only in the next recruitment process. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the light of the aforesaid rule, the writ petitioner cannot claim 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 such relief in the present petition. The petitioner's application will be considered by the first respondent Board in the next recruitment process, if he is otherwise eligible for selection as per rule. 5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.''
6. However, in the present case on hand, the impugned order has been passed in the year 2017, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order in the instant writ petition in the year 2020.
There is no explanation from the petitioner for the delay of more than two years in filing the instant writ petition.
7. The Delhi High Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. VS. SANJAY KUMAR NAIK AND OTHERS [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.9413 of 2016] has held as under:
''45. A careful reading of the aforesaid principles reveals that the principle of in rem in the second sense is not absolute. It is preferable to follow the said principle so that there is no discrimination or violation of Article 14 in service matters for all similarly situated persons should be treated alike and not differently. However, delay and laches as well as 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 acquiescence can be a ground to deny benefit to fence sitters. Those who do not approach the Court in a timely and prompt manner can be denied "equal treatment". Thus, it will be right to hold that doctrine of in rem in the second sense is not unconditional or unimpeachable. However, this exception would not apply where the earlier judgment pronounced by the Court is with the intent to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they had approached the Court or not. Benefit should not be extended when the said intent is not there and the judgment expressly or impliedly states that the benefit of the judgment would be extended to those, who had sought to enforce their rights and their petitions were not stale on account of delay and laches or acquiescence.''
8. In view of the decision cited supra, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, the petitioner's candidature shall be considered by the second respondent in the next selection process for the post of Grade II Police Constable if he is otherwise found eligible under Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 27.07.2022 Speaking / Non Speaking order Index : Yes/No vaan To 1 The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2 The Director General of Police/ Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old C.O.P. Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Chennai 600008. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District Vellore. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan W.P.No.2722 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.3164 of 2020 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2722 of 2020 Dated: 27.7.2022 In the present case on hand, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner involved in the criminal case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.965 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sec.147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. on the file of Arcot Nagar Police Station and the same has not been disclosed in the application. On a perusal of record shows that the petitioner's name is not found in the final report filed by the Arcot Town Police.
9/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis