AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioners were aspirants for the post of Police Constable, Grade II. They had appeared for the selection and they
were selected and since their selection was cancelled by invoking the Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, they have
come forward to file the present writ petitions.
Under the relevant rule, the appointing authority must be satisfied before the appointment is made regarding the character and antecedents of the
candidates in question. For the purpose of ascertaining the character and antecedents, the candidates were requested to fill up the forms in which
they will have to indicate that there was no criminal case pending against them or they were not involved in any criminal case. If the columns are not
filled up either indicating positively or negatively or if there is any attempt to suppress such vital information, it is open to the authorities to cancel
the appointment/selection made in their favour.
If candidate fill up the columns found in the form suppressing vital information regarding pendency of criminal case or being involved in criminal
activity, the Supreme Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police and Ors. reported in 2008 1 SCC 660 has held that selection can
be made and the candidate has no further right to challenge and even in such cases, the question of principles of natural justice are not attracted.
The Rule 14(b) came to be amended by the State Government to include either even in cases where an acquittal is done by the criminal Court
by granting benefit of doubt then 14(b)(iv) explanation (1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, even such candidates are
considered to be having criminal background and the authority can reject the selection in favour of such candidate. The amendment made to the
Rule by virtue of explanation came to be challenged before this Court in writ proceedings. The validity of the Rule upheld by this Court in V.
Veeramani and G. Balasubramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, .
The ratio of the said judgment came to be challenged and the matter was referred to a Full Bench of this Court headed by A.P. Shah, (C.J.,) (as
he then was) in Manikandan and Ors. v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board and Ors. reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97,
in that case, the Full Bench upheld the vires of the impugned rules and held that they were constitutionally valid.
In W.P. No. 7507 of 2008, a number of candidates have challenged the vires of the Rule. In the light of the Full Bench decision in
Manikandan''s case (cited supra) that writ petition is liable to be rejected.
In W.P. No. 8345 of 2008, the rejection was made on the ground of medical invalidation since the candidate was having defective eye sight
which is not conducive for the police force. Therefore, it is open to the authorities to rely upon the Rule to reject the candidature of the Petitioner.
Hence, W.P. No. 8345 of 2008 stands rejected.
In the other five writ petitions, the candidates have suppressed the information about their involvement in the criminal cases. In one case, it was
contended that the Petitioner was subsequently acquitted by the criminal court by grant of benefit of doubt. As already stated, the vires of the Rule
is not under challenge. Even otherwise, the vires of the Rule having been upheld by a Full Bench, valid action can be initiated in terms of the said
rule. Therefore, those five writ petitions also must fail.
In the light of above, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.