Dismissed

E. Veeran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WA/2671/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police constable recruitment candidate disqualified for involvement in a criminal case on the date of notification challenged his rejection belatedly after acquittal. The Division Bench held eligibility is fixed as on the notification date and acquittal only qualifies him for future selections, dismissing the appeal against dismissal of his writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

E. Veeran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

2025:MHC:2232

¶2

W.A.No.2671 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 02.09.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶7

W.A.No.2671 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.21552 and 21554 of 2022

E.Veeran

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶12

2.The Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old C.O.P Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Chennai-600 008

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

W.A.No.2671 of 2022

¶18

PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 27.07.2022 in W.P.No.2722 of 2020.

¶19

For Appellant : Ms.A.Pramila For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Suresh Government Advocate for R1 to R3

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

¶22

When the appellant herein had received an order dated 26.10.2017, disqualifying him from the selection process for the post of Grade II Police Constable under notification No.117 for the year 2017, he had challenged the same before the Writ Court in W.P.No.2722 of 2020. By an order dated 27.07.2022, the Writ Petition was dismissed predominantly on the ground that on the date of the recruitment notification, he had involved in a criminal case and that his subsequent absolvement from the criminal case would only qualify him to participate in the next selection process. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

W.A.No.2671 of 2022

¶26

K.Kalaiyazhagan vs. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment

¶27

Board, Chennai and two others in W.P.No.3169 of 2022 dated 21.02.2022.

¶28

The Writ Court also pointed out that the impugned order had been passed in the year 2017 and the appellant had belatedly challenged the rejection order only in the year 2020, without any explanation for such delay. This order dated 27.07.2022 of the Writ Court is assailed in this Writ Appeal.

¶29

Ms.A.Pramila, learned counsel for the appellant, made a strenuous

¶30

effort to explain the delay of two years in challenging the rejection order passed in the year 2017. According to her, when the appellant had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23219 of 2017, seeking to quash the FIR, wherein he was arrayed as an accused, the Additional Public Prosecutor had reported to the Court that the name of the appellant was deleted in the final report, which was also recorded in the final order passed in the Criminal Original Petition on 19.02.2019. Immediately thereafter, the appellant challenged the rejection order, and hence, the delay was properly explained.

¶31

3.Per contra, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General

¶32

submitted that the appellant was arrayed as an accused in an F.I.R when the recruitment notification was published. One of the essential qualification

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.A.No.2671 of 2022

¶36

for an applicant is that he must not be involved in any criminal case, and if so, he has to disclose the same in his application. Since it is not disputed that the appellant was involved in the criminal case as on date of the notification, he would be ineligible for consideration in the selection process and therefore, the rejection of his candidature cannot be found fault with.

¶37

We are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The essential requirements under Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board notification for eligibility in a selection process is that, on the date of the recruitment notification, the candidate must not be involved himself in any criminal case. Admittedly, he was arrayed as an accused in FIR.No.965 of 2012 and his name came to be dropped in the final report, which knowledge he acquired on 19.02.2019.

¶38

As pointed out by the Writ Court, the appellant's absolvement

¶39

from the criminal case would only make him eligible to participate in the subsequent selection process, which obviously would be subject to the

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.A.No.2671 of 2022

¶43

other prescribed qualifications and requirements. The explanation that the appellant was taking steps to absolve himself from the criminal case as a reason for the delay is unacceptable, since he did not qualify as on the date of the notification.

¶44

Thus, we do not find any illegality or other infirmity in the impugned order of the Writ Court and hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶45

closed.

¶46

[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J] 02.09.2025

¶47

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Anu

¶48

M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Anu

Page 5 of 6

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

¶53

W.A.No.2671 of 2022

¶54

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old C.O.P Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Chennai-600 008

¶55

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

¶56

W.A.No.2671 of 2022 and CMP.Nos.21552 and 21554 of 2022

¶57

02.09.2025

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

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

E. Veeran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

E. Veeran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meyammai Vs Sebastian

Vijaya Vs Rajendran

R. Murugeshan Vs Kavitha Rani

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Nanthini

Indhumathy Vs Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Nithyanandam (Deceased) Vs a.Veerapandian