The central legal point established is that acquittal, discharge, or quashing of a case should be considered in favor of the candidate in the current selection, and the right to protest is a fundamental right.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide office proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/9695/2023 dated 16.05.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training for the post of Grade II Police Constables (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force, Jail Warder and Firemen) with effect from the date of original selection within the period stipulated by this Court.)

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 16.05.2023 and consequently direct the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training for the post of Grade II Police Constables (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force, Jail Warder and Firemen) with effect from the date of original selection within the period stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner completed 10th standard in the year, 2013 and subsequently, completed 12th standard in the year 2015 and he also qualified in B.Com (CA) in the year 2018. On 16.07.2022, the petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Constable. He participated in the written examination on 27.11.2022 and he got qualified in the same. Thereafter, the respondents called the petitioner for physical efficiency test on 07.02.2023. He scored 65 marks out of 70 marks in the written examination and 24 marks out of 24 in the physical efficiency test and totally, he got 89 marks in the written examination and physical efficiency test. While so, during the month of April, 2023, he was called for medical examination. In the meanwhile, on 16.05.2023, the third respondent passed the impugned order mentioning that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was dropped for further action and on that basis, he was not selected by citing the involvement in the criminal case and his selection was rejected. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a criminal case has been filed as against the petitioner and other accused in Crime No.567 of 2017 on the file of the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 188, 353, 295 and 297 of I.P.C and it was with respect to the raising of slogans and seeking withdrawal of NEET examination which was organized by college students and the petitioner also participated in the same. Accused No.8 of the said crime number filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2156 of 2022 and this Court, by order, dated 01.02.2022 quashed the said Crime No.567 of 2017 on the file of Srivilliputhur Town Police Station and the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:-

“2..... After all, during the relevant time, the accused were College going students. The petitioner is now aged about 24 years and he must have been around 18 or 19 years then. One can take judicial notice of the fact that during the relevant time, conducting of NEET examination caused considerable public unrest. Death of a student by name, Anitha, made the whole issue highly emotional. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner can very well be understood. Admittedly, they did not indulge in any act of violence. It is seen that the FIR was registered wayback on 08.09.2017. No explanation is also forthcoming for the non-filing of the final report. In these circumstances, continuance of the prosecution is clearly not warranted. Therefore, the impugned FIR is quashed. This Criminal Original Petition