O R D E R

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade - II Police Constable / Grade II Jail Warder / Fireman, based on the merit list in the selection conducted by the first respondent for the year 2012 in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and the Judgement rendered by this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.354 of 2016, dated 13.07.2016.

2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and he was successful in the written examination and allowed to participate in the physical verification test and endurance test.

3. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.305 of 2012, on the file of Kumbakonam West Police Station, under Section 294(b) I.P.C. The petitioner was convicted and paid a fine of Rs.300/-. However, he filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.354 of 2016 and this Court by order dated 13.07.2016 allowed the revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is trivial in nature and as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Avatar Sing's case (cited supra), which was reiterated in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav vs. the Inspector General and Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern Railway, New Delhi and others, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300, the case of the petitioner is to be considered.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra) submitted that certain offences, which all are trivial in nature, need not be held against the candidate. The said proposition laid down in Avatar Singh's case by the Apex Court is referred in the recent case.

6. No doubt, in Avatar Singh's case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the principles. The principles are relatable to the deliberation of the competent Selection Committee. By picking up one condition in Avatar Singh's case (supra), a candidate cannot claim that he should be selected. In Avatar Singh's case (supra), many principles are laid down and all those principles are to be considered by the competent Selection Committee while taking a final decision. However, High Court can exercise the power of judicial review only if such a decision is tainted with mala fide or directly in violation of the statutory Rules in force.

7. The power of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of selection is limited. High Court cannot act as a selection body. The power of judicial review cannot be extended to interfere with the decision taken by the competent Selection Committee. In all such principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Avatar Singh's case (supra) and in the case relied on by the petitioner i.e. Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra), considerations to be deliberated by the Selection Committee have been enumerated. However, a candidate approaching High Court cannot site one such principle and seek a direction for selection from the High Court. Overall verification of antecedents and character of the candidate is paramount important for the selection to the Uniformed Services. The Uniformed Services Personnel are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the Society. They are equipped with arms and ammunitions. Their character is important to deal with the public as they are empowered to register criminal cases against the citizen. If a person is not suitable to be appointed as a Policeman, the same will result in denial of fundamental right to the citizen. Therefore, verification of antecedents and character and assessment of suitability and eligibility are all paramount important.

8. In the matter of selection, High Court cannot interfere with as stated above, only if allegation of m