O R D E R

The order of rejection, dated 15.09.2021, passed by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for selection to the post of Police Constable Grade-II, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and was successful in the written examination. He was allowed to participate in the physical verification test and endurance test. The petitioner succeeded in the tests also. During the verification process, the Selection Committee found that the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal case against him in Crime No.13 of 2012, for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, dated 31.01.2012. The petitioner has suppressed the said registration of the criminal case both in the application submitted pursuant to the Notification as well as during verification. Considering the fact that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding the registration of the criminal case, the order of rejection was passed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the suppression must be related to the material facts. Certain trivial offences and the registration of criminal case for such trivial offences cannot be a ground to reject the case on suppression of material facts. In other words, it is contended that suppression of material facts in respect of the criminal cases registered based on trivial offences is not a valid ground for rejection. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was acquitted honorably that also is to be considered. The order of acquittal was passed by the trial Court. In the revision petition, the petitioner was acquitted honourably.

4. The petitioner relied on the Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police on 17.12.2015. The points to be considered by the authorities are narrated in the said Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police. With reference to the instructions issued by the Director General of Police, the said Instructions are issued only for guiding the Competent Authorities and such Instructions would not confer any right on the petitioner either to rely on the same or to refer for the purpose of selection to the post. Such instructions reveals various aspects, which are all to be considered and such instructions are of no statutory enforceability. Therefore, relying on such instructions, inferences cannot be drawn in respect of the principles settled by the Constitutional Courts across the Country.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the issues regarding the selection was elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2018 (1) CTC 335). The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016 (8) SCC 471) that was also considered by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Even recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles considering Avtar Singh 's case (cited supra) and all earlier cases decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar in C.A.No.

4960 of 2021 dated 25.08.2021 held as follows:-

26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission7 held as follows:

“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the