Jayaprakash vs The Director General Police on 25 February, 2025
4. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents
wherein they had stated that the petitioner was acquitted only because the
witnesses, who had to depose on behalf of the prosecution were residents of
the same locality and had turned hostile and therefore, there was no other
option but for the learned Judicial Magistrate to acquit the petitioner. It
could not be considered as a Hon'ble acquittal. It had also been contended
that subsequently in the year 2023, there was yet another recruitment
conducted and the petitioner had not participated in the same. It had been
stated that the clock cannot be set back and the petitioner be appointed
merely because subsequently he had been acquited of all charges. On the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
side of the respondents, it had also been contended that a Full Bench of this
Court in W.P.No. 38289 of 2005 batch by Judgment dated 28.02.2008 in
[Manikandan and others Vs. Director General of Police] had observed as
follows:-