Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016
14. This Court also in an identical issue in
W.P.(MD)Nos.15726 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021 [P.Ramki v.
The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board, Chennai and Others], following the
aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar
Singh's case (cited supra) and the First Bench Judgment of
this Court in W.A.(MD)No.3877 of 2019 dated 13.11.2019,
had quashed the impugned orders and directed the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner's therein
afresh.
M. Manohar Reddy & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 February, 2013
Involvement without knowledge is also a factor
that can eclipse any disadvantage or prospective
impediment in certain circumstances, as explained
by the Apex Court in the case of M.Manohar Reddy
and another vs. Union of India and others, reported
in 2013 (3) SCC 99. Whether the fact or information
unknowingly withheld is at all a material fact, is a
matter of assessment on the peculiarity of the
material and it-s impact to be judiciously and
objectively assessed by the employer without any
prejudice or preconceived notions to rule out any
possibility of malice, or pure subjectivity in the
decision making process. It is here that a play in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/18
W.P.No.9444 of 2022
joints has to be given to the employer and unless
such a latitude is given, it will be injuncting the
authority from exercising its discretion to engage a
person suitable for the post. We, therefore, find that
an assessment has to be made by the Appointing
Authority as to whether the involvement of a
candidate in a criminal case would ultimately lead
to the conclusion that his engagement would be
detrimental for the nature of the employment for
which he is being engaged. This may involve a bit of
subjectivity, but the material on record has to
receive an objective consideration. The question as
to whether a person involved in a case of violating a
mere traffic rule or was involved in a heinous
offence would obviously weigh with the employer to
assess as to whether his engagement would
otherwise be sustainable or be detrimental for
recruitment in a Uniformed Police Force or not. We,
therefore, leave that open to the authority concerned
for an independent assessment. But, on the facts of
the present case, we find that the authority has
simply rested its decision on the finding that the
appointment did not deserve to be engaged on
account of not having been honourably acquitted.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manikandan And Ors. vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed ... on 28 February, 2008
9. The petitioner, challenging the rejection of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/18
W.P.No.9444 of 2022
candidature in the year 2012, had filed W.P.No.16318 of
2012, wherein this Court, by placing reliance upon the Full
Bench decision of this Court in Manikandan v. Chairman,
T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board reported in
2008 (2) CTC 97, wherein it was held that “if a person who
is aspiring for police selection, who was involved in a
criminal case, need not be considered in the first selection
and if acquitted in the criminal case, he can be considered
in the next selection” and also Explanation (2) to Rule
14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service
Rules, 1978, which says that “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”
has dismissed the writ petition by granting liberty to the
petitioner by observing that the said order will not preclude
the petitioner from participation in the second selection in
2012.
1