Dismissed¶41

Rajavadivu .T v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC6 Nov 2025WP(MD)/12659/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal of appointment order; Police Constable Grade-II recruitment year 2022; acquittal based on compromise memo; Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board; Director General of Police Tamil Nadu; Superintendent of Police Madurai; W.P.(MD)No.12659 of 2023; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; followed W.A.(MD)No.1879 of 2023 (30.10.2023) and W.A. (MD)No.1371 of 2024 (14.08.2024); writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; no order as to costs. ¶41

Rajavadivu .T Vs The Director General of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.12659 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.12659 of 2023

T.Rajavadivu

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director General of Police,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State,

¶12

Chennai.

¶13

2.The Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,

¶14

Rep. by its Chairman,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

3.The Superintendent of Police,

¶19

Madurai District,

¶20

Madurai. : Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶22

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

¶23

1/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.12659 of 2023

¶26

records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.P1/E3844177/2022 dated 11.05.2023 conducted the third respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the first respondent to issue Appointment order for the selection of Police Constable Grade – II for the recruitment year 2022.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Abiya For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General – II

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 11.05.2023, refusing to issue appointment order to the post of Police Constable Grade-II for the recruitment year 2022, on the ground that compromise recorded in a criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner which ended in acquittal cannot be considered for petitioner's appointment to the aforementioned post.

¶30

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has placed on record a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court dated 30.10.2023 passed in W.A.(MD)No.1879

¶31

2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.12659 of 2023

¶34

of 2023 and would submit that in an identical case where the selected candidate was acquitted in a criminal proceeding based on a compromise memo, the Division Bench has held that the order passed by the respondents refusing to issue appointment order in favour of the said selected candidate on the ground of compromise memo recorded in criminal proceedings cannot be interfered with by the courts. The Division Bench in the aforesaid decision has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶35

3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents also placed on record another Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court dated 14.08.2024 passed in W.A. (MD)No.1371 of 2024, involving a very same issue and in the said judgment as well, the selected candidate was disqualified on the ground that he is not entitled to get appointment order, despite the fact that the criminal case registered pending against him ended in acquittal based on a compromise memo.

¶36

4. In the case on hand as well, the petitioner has not been issued appointment order only due to the fact that eventhough the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal court, the said acquittal judgment was passed only based on a compromise memo entered

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.12659 of 2023

¶40

into between the petitioner and the accused. In view of the Division Bench judgments referred to supra and since the petitioner is also similarly placed, the question of interfering with the impugned order does not arise. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition.

¶41

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There

¶42

shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

06.11.2025

¶44

Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR

¶45

4/6

¶46

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