Dismissed

K.Radhakrishnan v. The Director General of police

Madras HC2 Sept 2024WA(MD)/1491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against rejection of candidature for Grade II Constable following dismissal of the writ petition. The bench reaffirmed Supreme Court rulings that acquittal via compromise may be disregarded by the Screening Committee and dismissed the appeal, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Radhakrishnan Vs The Director General of police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2024

¶7

K.Radhakrishnan ... Appellant

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 4.

¶10

2.The Director, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14420 of 2018, dated 10.05.2019.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For Respondents : Mr.P.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by S.R.A.Ramachandran

¶14

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

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶16

W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2024

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶19

The rejection of the appellant's candidature for appointment as Grade II Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Service was the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition, by order dated 10.05.2019, following the judgment in Honble Supreme Court in

¶20

Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶21

“33. So far as respondent Mehar Singh is concerned, his case appears to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittal recorded pursuant to a compromise should not be treated as a disqualification because that will frustrate the purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission. Compromises or settlements have to be encouraged to bring about peaceful and amiable atmosphere in the society by according a quietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending litigation. But these considerations cannot be brought in here. In order to maintain integrity and high standard of police force, the Screening Committee may decline to take cognizance of a compromise, if it appears to it to be dubious. The Screening Committee cannot be faulted for that.”

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶23

W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2024

¶24

2.Subsequently, also in the case of Chandra Yadav v. Union of India reported in 2023 (7) SCC 536 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the same view. We had followed the said judgment in W.A.(MD)No. 609 of 2023 and disposed of on 12.06.2023. We see no reason to deviate from the view, which have already taken.

¶25

3.Hence, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 02.09.2024

¶27

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes Mrn

¶28

¶29

1.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 4.

¶30

2.The Director, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶34

W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2024

¶35

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶36

Mrn

¶37

W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2024

¶38

02.09.2024

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

K.Radhakrishnan v. The Director General of police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Radhakrishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ravisekaran Vs Dr.v.P.Jeyaseelan IAS

P.Kumar Vs v.Rajaraman IAS

The Director Vs Theertha Jayakrishnan

R.Boominathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Mary Stellabai Vs The District Collector

Jerin Jenila Vs The District Collector