Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3797

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
J. Alex Ponseelan
Versus
The Director General of Police, Chennai & Others
W.P.(MD) No. 8345 of 2011 & W.P.(MD) Nos. 13148 & 13149 of 2012, 85, 3287, 5055, 5717, 6717, 6799, 6800, 7211, 7813, 7838, 9398, 9861, 11794 & 16635 of 2013
Decided On : 07-11-2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.A. Ebenezer, G. Thalaimutharasu, A. John Vincent, K. Mahendran, J. Sivaram, M. Suresh Kumar, B.K. Rajendran, J. Jeyakumaran, A. Haja Mohideen, A. Jayaramachandran, R. Aravind Raj, D. Sasikumar, J. Parekhkumar, Advocates, M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents: M. Govindan, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the conflicting interpretations and constitutionality of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, which disqualifies individuals involved in criminal cases from police service.

Headnote:
Police Constables - Eligibility for Appointment - Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, Rule 14(b)(iv) - The court discussed the constitutionality of Rule 14(b)(iv) and its explanations, which disqualify individuals involved in criminal cases from police service. The court considered conflicting judgments and the impact of subsequent Supreme Court decisions on the interpretation of the rule.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constables and were selected, but their candidatures were rejected based on police verification reports showing their involvement in criminal cases. The court considered the complex legal questions involved and requested assistance from a Senior Counsel. The eligibility for appointment to the police service was governed by Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, which was subsequently amended.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Full Bench judgment in Manikandan v. Chairman T.N.Uniformed Services Recruitment Board upheld the validity of Rule 14(b)(iv) and its explanations, disqualifying individuals acquitted or discharged in criminal cases from police service. However, subsequent judgments by Single Judges of the court and the Supreme Court raised doubts about the interpretation and constitutionality of the rule.
Issues: The court considered whether the acquittal or discharge of a person in a criminal case on benefit of doubt would amount to a stigma, and whether non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, which ended in acquittal, could be a ground for disqualification from government service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Full Bench judgment did not hold the field in view of subsequent Supreme Court decisions and conflicting judgments by Single Judges. The court expressed doubts about the correctness of the Full Bench judgment and the interpretation of Rule 14(b)(iv) and requested the Chief Justice to consider constituting a larger Bench to decide the questions of law involved.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to place the cases before the Chief Justice to decide whether to constitute a larger Bench to determine the validity and interpretation of Rule 14(b)(iv) and its explanations.

Judgment :

Order of Reference

1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions had applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constables, in the Selection Process held by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. The process consisted of a written examination and thereafter physical fitness test. These petitioners were all selected in the same. Thereafter, verification, regarding antecedents of the petitioners, was done through police, which is otherwise known as 'Police Verification'. It came to light from such police verification reports that these petitioners were all involved in criminal cases. Based on the said reports and by referring to Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, their candidatures were rejected. Those orders are under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. Considering the complicate questions of law involved in these writ petitions, this Court requested Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior Counsel, to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel assisted the Court by bringing to the notice of this Court various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Govindan.

3. The above said Police Service is governed by the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Rule 14(b) of the Rules speaks of eligibility for appointment to the service, by direct recruitment. The said rule, as it originally stood, reads as follows:

"14(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the Appointing Authority,--

(i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; and

(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; and

(iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living;"

4. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.(Ms) No.101, Home (Police IX) Department, dated 30.01.2003, thereby amending the "Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978". This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and Section 9 of the Chennai City Police Act read with the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By the said G.O., Rule 14(b) was amended and sub-rule (iv), along with Explanations (1) and (2), was added to Rule 14(b). The newly introduced provision, by way of the said amendment, reads as follows:

"(iv)That he has not involved in any Criminal Case before police verification.

Explanation (1): A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile" shall be treated as person involved in a Criminal Case.

Explanation (2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police Verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a Criminal Case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment."

5. The constitutionality of the above amended provision [Rule 14(b)(iv)] of the Rules came to be challenged in a writ petition before this Court in V.Veeramani and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.IX) Department, Chennai and others - [2007 (3) MLJ 676]. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the validity of the said provision.

6. Unaware of the said decision of this Court in Veeramani's case, subsequently, a number of writ petitions came to be filed before the Principal Bench of this Court, challenging the vires of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Rules. The said question was placed before a Full Bench, by the then Chief Justice. The Full Bench, presided over by Chief Justic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document