This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a petitioner's selection for a police constable post due to suppression of criminal case details. The court held that verification of character and antecedents for uniformed services is paramount and not subject to judicial interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :08.03.2019
CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.183 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.197 of 2019
J.Pandian
.. Petitioner
..vs..
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in Na.Ka.No.A2 (3)/3000/2017 dated 26.10.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Gr-II Police Constable in T.N.police Subordinate Service and send him for training and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Venkataraman, Senior Counsel for M/s.M.Muthappan For Respondents: Mr.D.Suriya Narayanan,
Additional Government Pleader
The order of rejection cancelling the selection of the writ petitioner for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2(3)/3000/2017, dated 26.10.2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Secondly, the writ petitioner had involved in a criminal case and on verification of character and antecedent, the authorities found that the same is not satisfactory. On these two grounds, the impugned order has been passed.
“15. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.”
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can intervene when selection was cancelled on grounds of suppressed criminal case details in a police recruitment application.
Whether authorities can verify character and antecedents and cancel selection even if a candidate is acquitted or later disclosed pendency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh PawarExplained¶19
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, 2018 (6) CTC 659
J. Pandian
Director General of Police
Superintendent of Police, Vellore District
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
