Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1379
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
M. Vijaya Baskar
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri & Another
W.P. Nos. 2795, 650, 3467, 3213, 1740, 1278, 3616, 2837 3691, 3688, 4278, 2836 & 3717 of 2013, 24279 & 24351 of 2012
Decided on : 22-03-2013
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, R. Sankarasubbu, G. Ethirajulu, V. Sairam, J. Senthilkumar, A. Arasu Ganesan, S. Sivakumar, D. Lingeswaran, G. Prabhakar, O.S. Thilak Pasumbadiyar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R. Govindasamy, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disqualification based on involvement in criminal cases, despite acquittal and discharge, is unjustified and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of involvement and the Supreme Court's stance on acquittal and minor offences.
Headnote:
Criminal Cases - Appointment as Grade-II Police Constables - Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board - TNUSRB Police Recruitment 2012 - 13320 posts - 12,152 posts of Police Constable - 377 posts of Warden - 791 posts of Fireman - 56 Backlog posts - Minimum eligibility qualification - 10th class pass, age between 18 and 24 years as on 01.07.2012 - Age relaxation for Scheduled Caste - Petitioners qualified for appointment as Constable Grade-II - Disqualification based on criminal cases - Challenge on grounds of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Interpretation of Rule 14 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules - Acquittal and discharge in criminal cases - Concealment of information - Supreme Court's stance on acquittal and minor offences - Quashing of impugned orders and direction for appointment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who qualified for appointment as Constable Grade-II, were disqualified based on their involvement in criminal cases, despite acquittal and discharge. They challenged the disqualification on the grounds of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the interpretation of Rule 14 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners' disqualification based on their involvement in criminal cases, despite acquittal and discharge, was unjustified and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment by ignoring their alleged involvement in the criminal cases and appoint them if they fall in the merit for selection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disqualification of the petitioners based on their involvement in criminal cases, the interpretation of Rule 14 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, and the applicability of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the disqualification of the petitioners based on their involvement in criminal cases, despite acquittal and discharge, was unjustified and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court also emphasized the need to consider the nature of involvement and the Supreme Court's stance on acquittal and minor offences.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment by ignoring their alleged involvement in the criminal cases and appoint them if they fall in the merit for selection. The Court also directed the respondents to reconsider the cases of petitioners who were convicted and imposed a fine, taking into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
This judgement shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz.,
Sl.No. W.P.No. Name of Petitioner
1. 2795 of 2013 M.Vijaya Baskar
2. 650 of 2013 Tamilazhagan
3. 3467 of 2013 J.Senthil
4. 3213 of 2013 M.Mageswaran
5. 1740 of 2013 D.Chitharanjan
6. 1278 of 2013 Annamalai
7. 3616 of 2013 L.K.Starnesh
8. 2836 of 2013 A.Manikandan
9. 2837 of 2013 R.Nithyanandham
10. 3691 of 2013 Dhanakoteeswaran
11. 24279 of 2012 Saikumar
12. 24351 of 2012 S.Manikandan
13. 3688 of 2013 V.Bharathan
14. 4278 of 2013 Velu
15. 3717 of 2013 Sathishkumar
as the common question of law is raised in all these writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.2795 of 2013.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders of the respondents in rejecting the claim of petitioners for appointment as Grade-II Police Constables inspite of their selection and having been found medically fit.
3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) issued recruitment notification “TNUSRB Police Recruitment 2012” on 22.03.2012 for enrollment of Police Constable Grade-II, Jail Warden and Fireman. The advertisement was issued for 13320 posts, out of which 12,152 post were of Police Constable, 377 posts of Warden, 791 posts of Fireman, including 56 Backlog posts. The last date for submission of application forms was on or before 23.04.2012. The date for written examination was fixed on 24.06.2012.
4. The minimum eligibility qualification prescribed under the notification was 10th class pass, age between 18 and 24 years as on 01.07.2012. For candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, there was age relaxation till 29.
5. The petitioner, after being successful in the physical fitness test was allowed to take up examination on 24.06.2012 and 22.08.2012. The petitioner was awarded 57 marks out of 80 marks in the written test and was 14 out of 15 in the physical test. The petitioner therefore qualified to be appointed as Constable Grade-II.
6. After the petitioner had undergone medical examination, local Police were called upon by the concerned department to verify the antecedents of petitioner for character verification. It is submitted, that the local Inspector certified that there were no adverse remarks against the character of petitioner, but it was reported, that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner in Crime No.P.S.429 of 2011 with the Inspector of Police, Morappur, but was closed as mistake of fact against the petitioner.
7. The reasons for disqualification of petitioners In each of the writ petition are as under:
Sl.No. W.P.No. Name of Petitioner Crime No. Remarks
& Offence
1. 2795 of 2013 M.Vijaya Baskar P.S.429 of 2011 for Closed as Mistake of
Offence under Secs. Fact on 12.12.12 by
147, 294(b), 323, the learned Judicial
324 and 506(ii) IPC Magistrate, Pappirettiatti,
Harur District.
2. 650 of 2013 Tamilazhagan Cr.No.1627 of 2009 Acquitted on Benefit of
(C.C.No.378 of 2009) Doubt on 22.10.2010 by
for offence under Secs. the learned Judicial
147, 148, 323 and Magistrate No.1,
324 IPC Krishnagiri.
3. 3467 of 2013 J.Senthil Cr.No.245 of 2004 Acquitted on Benefit of
(C.C.No.119 of 2005) Doubt on 20.10.2010 by
for offence under the learned Judicial
Secs.147, 148, 323, Magistrate No.II,
325, 326 and 294-A Dharmapuri.
IPC.
4. 3213 of 2013 M.Mageswaran Cr.No.396 of 2007 Acquitted on Benefit of
(STC No.482 of Doubt on 30.09.2009 by
2008) for offence the learned Judicial
under Secs.4(1)(i) Magistrate No.II, Valaja.
and 4(1)(aa) of TNP
Act.
5. 1740 of 2013 D.Chitharanjan Cr.No.795 of 2005 Acquitted on Benefit of
(C.C.No.251 of 2007) Doubt on 08.10.2010 by
for offence under the learned Judicial
Secs.294 (b), 323 Magistrate No.II,
and 506(i) IPC. Kancheepuram.
6. 1278 of 2013 Annamalai Cr.No.332 of 2011 Acquitted on Benefit of
(C.C.No.123 of 2011) Doubt on 28.12.2012 by
for offence under Sec. the learned D
