Allowed

Santhoshkumar.J v. the Director General of Police

Madras HC25 Oct 2021WP(MD)/11973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a writ petition filed by a police constable candidate against the rejection of his application due to alleged suppression of criminal involvement. The Court found the recruitment authority acted mechanically without verifying the case details disclosed by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.05.2021 set aside; petition allowed; matter remanded to third respondent for fresh consideration within 12 weeks.

Santhoshkumar.J Vs the Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11973 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.11973 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.9394 of 2021

¶5

J. Santhoshkumar ... Petitioner

¶6

.vs.

¶7

1.The Director General of Police,

¶8

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

¶9

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶10

2.The Member Secretary,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

¶12

Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,

¶13

Pantheon Road, Egmore,

¶14

Chennai - 600 008.

¶15

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/37888/2019, dated 19.05.2021 and to quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner (Enrollement No.2110905) in the post of Sub Inspector of Police based on the provisional selection list issued by the third respondent dated 15.04.2021, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. A.K. Manikkam Standing Counsel for State

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ petition has been to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/37888/2019, dated 19.05.2021 and to quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner (Enrollment No.2110905) in the post of Sub Inspector of Police based on the provisional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P(MD)No.11973 of 2021

¶22

selection list issued by the third respondent dated 15.04.2021, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

2.The Petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable during the recruitment held on 2019. The Petitioner was not considered for selection by the respondents. According to the respondents, the respondents have rejected the selection on the ground that the Petitioner has involved in Cr.No.333 of 2017 registered for the offences under Section 174 Cr.P.C., @ 294(b), 323, 341 and 506(i) of IPC on the ground that the Petitioner has suppressed the said fact in the application form. According to the Petitioner the aforesaid reason stated in the impugned order is contrary to the notice and that the petitioner has also enclosed the application form in the typed set of papers. On a perusal of the application form filed in the typed set of papers, the Petitioner had given particulars with regard to the involvement of the case in Crime No.333 of 2017 and according to the Petitioner, there is no suppression of the facts as alleged by the respondents.

¶24

3.Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents also gone into the impugned order passed by the respondent and submitted that the said fact cannot be disputed.

¶25

4.After perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the 3^rd respondent has passed the impugned order mechanically without considering the application in a proper manner wherein he has disclosed the factum of his involvement in the Criminal case in Cr.No.333 of 2017. But, on the contrary, the said application was rejected by the respondents. Therefore this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order.

¶26

5.Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 19.05.2021 passed by the third respondent is set aisde and the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avthar's singh case and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.3877 of 2019, dated 13.11.2019, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

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

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P(MD)No.11973 of 2021

¶33

vsn /trp To

¶34

1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶35

2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

¶36

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.G.SANKARAN, Advocate ( SR-32936[F] dated 27/10/2021 )

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-32560[F] dated 26/10/2021 )

¶39

W.P(MD)No.11973 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.9394 of 2021 25.10.2021

¶40

PS(CO) RS/UV (08.11.2021) 3P 6C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Santhoshkumar.J v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhoshkumar.J v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chellavel, Vs M.A. Murugesan

P.M. Raju, Vs Murugesan

M.Thavamani, Vs Murugesan

Raja Vs the Chairman

Ajithkumar Vs the Chairman

V.Kalyani Vs the Secretary to Government