ORDER :

S.Vaidyanathan, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review Applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. This Review Application is filed by the Writ Petitioner to review the order dated 10.02.2022 in Writ Appeal No.978 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

3. The above said Writ Appeal No.978 of 2014 was filed by the State against the order dated 22.03.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.1740 of 2013.

4. The said W.P.No.1740 of 2013 was filed by the review applicant herein (D.Chitharanjan) to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.M1/6241/2012, dated 10.12.2012 on the file of the second respondent (The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Kancheepuram) and quash the same and direct the first respondent-Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, to select and appoint the writ petitioner (review petitioner) for the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, Kancheepuram.

5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the review petitioner is similarly placed like that of one E.Sugumar and Sathish Kumar and that the review petitioner's candidature needs to be considered and the judgment dated 10.02.2022 rendered in W.A.No.978 of 2022 needs to be reviewed.

6. It is seen that the said E.Sugumar earlier had filed W.P.No.7229 of 2020 before this Court to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent therein (Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu Distict, i/c Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram) in Na.Ka.No.M1/22432/2019, dated 03.03.2020 and quash the same as illegal and ultra-vires and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the said E.Sugumar in the post of Police Constable Grade-II. The said W.P.No.7229 of 2020 was allowed on 16.12.2020, against which, the State had preferred Writ Appeal No.2367 of 2021, which was dismissed on 21.09.2021, against which, the State had preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C).No.4426 of 2022 before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has dismissed the said Special Leave Petition on 21.03.2022, holding as follows:

"1. In the facts and circumstances of this case, and without this Court expressing any opinion on the question of law, which has been raised by the State of Tamil Nadu (which is kept open to be urged in an appropriate case), this is not a fit and appropriate case for the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

3. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

7. Moreover, it is relied across the Bar, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Methu Meda (in Civil Appeal No.6238 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave to Petition (C).No.23856 of 2014, dated 06.10.2021), wherein it was held by the Apex Court as follows in paragraph 22:

"22. ..... the law is well-settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.3897 of 2013 and Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1090 of 2013 are not sustainable in laws, as discussed hereinabove."

8. This Court, while rendering the judgment dated 10.02.2