Dismissed

The Director General of Police v. G.Murugan (Regn. NO.2900103)

Madras HC1 Nov 2018WA(MD)/1096/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal dismissed. Apex confirms Single Judge order allowing petitioner appointment. Court held no rule prohibits CRPF Constable appearing for other exams and deleted charge sheet name means no criminal involvement. Petitioner to be appointed.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to comply with the impugned order appointing the petitioner within eight weeks.

The Director General of Police Vs G.Murugan (Regn… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.1096 of 2015

¶8

1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004.

¶9

2.The Chairman,

¶10

Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board,

¶11

No.807, P.T.Le Chengalvarrayar Maligai,

¶12

Anna Salai, Chennai-02.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police,

¶14

Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Appellants/Respondents

¶15

Vs.

¶16

G.Murugan

¶17

: Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of Writ Court dated 26.03.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.2358 of 2013.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD). 2358/ 2013 :

¶20

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records pertaining the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide Na.Ka.No. A3/11758/2012 dated 24/01/2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Grade-II Police Constable.

¶21

For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader

¶22

For Respondent : Mr.V.Kannan

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

¶25

[ Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶26

This Writ Appeal has been preferred as against the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the Writ Petition filed was allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶28

¶29

The respondent/writ petitioner appeared for the examination for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. His candidature was rejected on the ground that he was working at the relevant point of time as Constable in CRPF and he wrote the examination without intimating the said authority and disclosing the aforesaid fact. The second reason was with respect to the involvement in the criminal case. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition inter alia holding that there is no law which prohibits an in service candidate in CRPF to appear for examination for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. Secondly, it was held that inasmuch as the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was deleted from the charge sheet, he cannot be termed as a person involved in the criminal case.

¶30

We find no error in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. There is no material produced by the appellants to the contrary. It is seen that there is no rule or regulation, which prohibits an in service candidate working as Constable in CRPF for appearing for some other examination. Similarly, neither notification nor rule pertaining to the recruitment provides so. The other rule, especially, with respect to Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, also does not have any application to the case on hand. When the name of the respondent/writ petitioner has been deleted from the charge sheet, he cannot be stated to be involved in an offence. We are not dealing with a case of adjudication by the Court. Even the investigating agency has dropped the case against the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶31

In such view of the matter, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge stands affirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶35

¶36

1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004.

¶37

2.The Chairman,

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Le Chengalvarrayar Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.

¶39

¶40

3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶41

+1 CC To MR.V.KANNAN, Advocate SR. NO. 94124

¶42

+1 CC TO The Special Government Pleader SR.NO. 94251

¶43

Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1096 of 2015 Dated : 01.11.2018

¶44

SML

¶45

TR/SV/SAR-I(23.11.2018)3P 6C

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Director General of Police v. G.Murugan (Regn. NO.2900103)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Police v. G.Murugan (Regn. NO.2900103)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director General of Police Vs S. Thirumurugan

P.Ramachandran Vs the Sub Collector

C. Sivakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Nagendran Vs the Principal Secretary to

Sasi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kailasam Vs the Inspector of Police