Disposed

R.Nelson Jerome v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC16 Feb 2023WP/7210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal directs the second respondent to re-consider the petitioner's application for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. The primary legal contention involved whether the petitioner's prior acquittal in a criminal case amounted to the suppression of a material fact warranting rejection of his candidature.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent was directed to re-consider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

R.Nelson Jerome Vs The Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.7210 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :16.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.7210 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.8952 of 2018

R.Nelson Jerome

.. Petitioner

/versus/

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

¶12

2.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2(3)/06710/2017 dated 03.10.2017 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable within a reasonable time.

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Senthil Kumar

¶16

For Respondents :Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG-VII, Assisted by Mr.T.Chezhian, AGP

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/4

W.P.No.7210 of 2018

O R D E R

Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised

¶22

several grounds in the writ petition, his primary ground is that, he was acquitted from the criminal case and therefore, he was of the view that, the acquittal from the criminal case need not be referred to in the application form.

¶23

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that suppression of material fact is a

¶24

sufficient ground for rejection of the candidature.

¶25

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶26

submitted that, the respondent may be called upon to re-consider his case, in the light of the above submission made by him.

¶27

In consideration of the request made, there shall be a direction to

¶28

the 2^nd respondent herein to re-consider the petitioner's case, in the light of

¶29

the submissions made by him, on its own merits and pass appropriate

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

2/4

¶32

W.P.No.7210 of 2018

¶33

orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶35

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

16.02.2023

¶37

Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order ari

¶38

To:

¶39

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

¶40

2.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/4

W.P.No.7210 of 2018

M.S.RAMESH, J.

ari

W.P.No.7210 of 2018

and W.M.P.No.8952 of 2018

¶48

16.02.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

4/4

R.Nelson Jerome v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Nelson Jerome 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Arumugam Vs The Joint Registrar

S.Dakshinamoorthy Vs Secretary to Government of

S. Mohan Vs State of Tamil nadu

S.Murugan, Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

C.Krishnan, Village Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Mohan Vs Chief Engineer