Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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).

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.