B. Pandian vs The Additional Director General of Police and The Superintendent, Central Jail

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of

Mandamus, directing the first Respondent to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner for the post of Grade II Warder - Prisons Department.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Warders, Prisons Department. The Petitioner qualified written test and also cleared interview,

and, was placed in the list of selected candidates.

Provisionally selected list was issued vide No. G1/6202/2008 dated 19.05.2009 by the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail, Salem. The

Petitioner was also directed to undergo medical examination on 22.05.2009, where he was declared medically fit.

Though the other persons in the provisionally selected list were given appointment, the Petitioner was denied appointment.

The Petitioner, on enquiry, was informed that his name figured in a criminal case in Crime No. 632 of 2008 of Thammampatty Police Station.

However, the Petitioner was not aware of any such case.

The case of the Petitioner is that on information, it was revealed that in fact, the Petitioner was found to be not involved in this case. Therefore

for all intend and purpose, no case was pending against him. But in spite of this, the Respondents did not issue him appointment letter, without

assigning any reasons.

On notice, counter has been filed by the first Respondent, wherein, it has been averred as under:

It is further submitted that Government in G.O.(D) No. 789, Home(Pr. III) Department dated 04.07.2008 have issued orders for causing

Medical Examination by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10 and Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6.

Accordingly, the Director of Medical Education formed Regional Medical Boards to cause Medical Examination for the candidates who are

included in the waiting list. The Petitioner was referred to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem for Medical

Examination. Accordingly, the Petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 22.05.2009 and declared him as medically fit and the

Provisionally selected candidates were subjected to Police verification. The Director General of Police has given instructions to the Commissioners

of Police of all cities, Superintendent of Police of all Districts vide memo No. 123804/Rect/11(2)/08 dated 21.03.2009 to verify the character and

antecedents of the candidates. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Salem District has verified and forwarded the Verification Roll to the first

Respondent. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Police Station, Salem District in his report dated 27.04.2009 has stated that a case was

filed in Thammampatty Police Station on 14.10.2008 in Crime No. 473/2008 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against

Tr. B. Pandian, S/o. K. Balu and 11 others. Later on enquiry was conducted by the local Police and came to the conclusion that Tr. B. Pandiyan,

has not involved in the said criminal case. Further the above case was changed u/s 160 IPC and charge sheet was filed against 6 others except the

Petitioner. Subsequently, another case was also filed in Thammampatty Police Station on 15.12.2008 in Crime No. 632/2008 under Sections 147,

148, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 294(b) IPC against the Petitioner Tr. B. Pandiyan, S/o. K. Balu and 13 others. The case was investigated by the

Inspector of Police, Thammampatty Circle and decided that Tr. B. Pandiyan the Petitioner was not involved in the case. It is submitted that in the

waiting list, 20 candidates were found eligible and those were posted as Grade II Warders and they have joined duty at Central Prison-2, Puzhal

on 28.08.2009. I submit that the Petitioner has involved in Criminal Cases. While submitting the details to the verification Roll, the Petitioner, has

suppressed the fact of involvement in criminal cases the Petitioner furnished the details as ''NIL'' in Col.15 of the Police Verification Roll.

Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1410, Home (Pri. II) Department, dated 17.10.2008 Government have issued the following orders:

(f) A person 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 a person involved in a criminal case. Explanation (2): 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 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. Hence, as per the above Government orders, the Petitioner is not eligible for appointment to the post of Grade II Warder.

On consideration of the matter, I find that stand of the Respondents in denying appointment to Petitioner cannot be accepted. Averments made

in the Paragraph No. 4 of the counter shows that the Petitioner was not involved in any criminal cases, and that his name was wrongly included

with malafide intention.

The Petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of his. The averments in the counter show that there were no cases against the Petitioner,

and his name was wrongly mentioned for extraneous reasons.

The action of the Respondents, in not issuing appointment letter to the Petitioner, on the face of it, is arbirary and amount to colourable

exercise of power, therefore, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated, this writ petition is allowed. Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the first Respondent to issue letter of

appointment to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Normally, this Court could only issue direction to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment. But, in the present case, in view of the

facts stated, direction is required to be issued for appointment, as the Petitioner stands selected for appointment and has also undergone medical

examination, wherein, he has been declared medically fit.