The main legal point established is the significance of truthful disclosure of criminal involvement by candidates applying for government positions, as emphasized in the Avtar Singh case and subsequent judicial interpretations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 3rd respondent dated 6.1.2022 made in Na.Ka.No.A3/27322/2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special police service pertaining to the common Recruitment 2020 together with all service benefits.)

1. The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of rejection dated 6.01.2022 passed by the third respondent, has filed the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable pursuant to notification issued by the first respondent on 17.9.2020, successfully passed the written examination, Physical Endurance Test and he got provisionally selected for the said post. However, to his shock and surprise, the third respondent has passed the impugned order of rejection dated 6.01.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in the criminal case registered in Crime No.784 of 2019 for the offence under Sec.151 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.784 of 2019 under Sec.151 Cr.P.C. which is preventive detention and in the said case, action dropped by the Police and the F.I.R. also has been closed. The petitioner had no knowledge of the registration of the F.I.R. until the impugned order was passed. Without taking into account the aforesaid fact, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable and prays for quashing of the impugned order of rejection.

4. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submits that at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner has not disclosed about his involvement in the criminal case in the relevant column of the application submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable. As per Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a candidate being selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable should not involved in any criminal case and having good character. Therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2020.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made and also perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case has been registered against the pettioner in Cr.No.784 of 2019 under Sec.151 Cr.P.C. for preventive detention and in the said case, action dropped by the Police and the F.I.R. also has been closed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner has not involved in the said criminal case. Therefore, there is no legal embargo to consider the petitioner's name for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable.

7. This Court in W.P.No.31601 of 2017 has dealt with an identical issue and the relevant portion of the order, dated 09.01.2020, are extracted hereunder:

“7.The Division Bench of this Court in an identical issue in W.A.Nos.626, 627, 816 to 825 and 159 of 2014, considered the scope of rejection of the candidature to the post of Grade II Police Constable and following the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case (supra), observed that the involvement of the candidate in a criminal case may have adverse impact, the appointing authority would take a decision after considering the seriousness of the case and directed the Director General of Police to consider the case of the petitioner therein in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case, wherein the Hon-b