JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/3731/2021 dated 25.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/3731/2021 dated 25.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector.

2. The 4th respondent Recruitment Board issued a Notification No.2/2019 dated 08.03.2019 calling for common recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police). The petitioner has applied in response to the notification and was permitted to participate in the selection process. The petitioner passed the initial written examination and has also come out successfully in the physical test conducted by the Board. When he was awaiting appointment order to be issued, the impugned order was passed on 25.05.2021, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he had suppressed the criminal case which was registered against him earlier to his participation in the selection.

3. According to the petitioner, a case in Crime No.289 of 2014 was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kangeyam Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.132 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam. After the trial, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges vide order dated 25.04.2018.

4. According to the petitioner, the criminal case ended in acquittal as early as on 25.04.2018, but the notification was issued only on 08.03.2019. At that time, there was no pendency of criminal case against him. Even, otherwise a petty quarrel had resulted in registration of the FIR and the criminal case, but eventually, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges and has come out unscathed in the proceedings.

5. The learned counsel Mr.Arun Anbumani, who appeared for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to number of decisions passed by this Court in such matters allowing the writ petition and interfering with the cliched and hackneyed reasoning of the appointing authority while considering such matters. The learned counsel referred to one such decision in W.P.No.8135 of 2020 dated 04.12.2020. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.24 to 26, which are extracted hereunder.

24. In one other recent decision of this Court in W.P.No.10788 of 2020 dated 06.10.2020, yet again this Court has reminded the authority has to how they should discharge the discretion vested in them. In this decision, this Court has inextenso extracted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh’s case and also the observation of the learned Division Bench of this Court referred to above and finally, held as under in paragraph Nos. 23,24,25 and 26:

“23. The above decision is a pointer to the authorities of the importance of the discretionary power vested in them and the exercise of such power in matters like the present one.

24. In cases of this nature, when the discretion is vested with the authorities, they are expected to adopt circumstantial flexibility and cannot meaninglessly take refuge under the Rule position and reject all cases by painting every candidate with same brush, who was involved in the criminal case or failed to disclose the same in the application form. Such exhibition of pedantic-application of mind would amount to apathetic surrendering of the discretion, so vested, to the inanimate letters of the rule, giving a go by to the spirit of the rule whic