In a writ petition challenging disqualification for a police constable post where the petitioner was acquitted due to a hostile complainant, the court ruled that Explanation I to Rule 14(b) deems such cases as criminal involvements. Dismissing the petition, the court held the petitioner ineligible for appointment.
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.
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
Kalidass
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A3/33792/2002, dated 02.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in Registration No.2408570 as Grade II Police Constable for the requirement of respondents for the year 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader
1/6
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2/6
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
Rule 14(b): No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that
3/6
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
(i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and
(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and
(iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living.
(iv) that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification.
Explanation (1): A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefits of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case 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.
is enough if the complainant had turned hostile. It is not necessary that he should have been formally declared as a hostile witness. That apart, the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the petitioner did not disclose the factum of his involvement, when he filled up the application form.
Only during the verification stage, the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases came to be disclosed. There is yet another case registered against the petitioner. It appears that he was found guilty of having breached Covid norms and he had paid a fine of Rs.600/- in S.T.C.No.45 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi on 08.02.2021.
4/6
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
meritorious sports person, this Court cannot come to his rescue. The impugned
memorandum is sustained. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
10.11.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi
To
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
W.P(MD)No.5730 of 2022
10.11.2022
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who was acquitted due to the complainant turning hostile is eligible for appointment as a police constable under Rule 14(b) Explanation (I) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subord
Whether the failure of the petitioner to disclose prior criminal case involvement during the application stage vitiates the recruitment process.
Whether the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner from appointment should be set aside.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kalidass
Director General of Police, Chennai
Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
