BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 09.02.2023 DELIVERED ON: 21.06.2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HON'BLE TMT.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.A.(MD)No.53 of 2023 M.Sathish Kumar .. Appellant Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu State, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.

2.Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Represented by its Chairman, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No.817 of 2020 dated

22.03.2022.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Muniasamy For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General

JUDGMENT

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

This writ appeal is filed against the order of the Writ Court dated

22.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.817 of 2020, in and by which, challenge made by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order of rejection dated 24.10.2019 passed by the third respondent, rejecting the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner for selection to the post of Police Constable Grade-II, came to be rejected.

2. The candidature of the petitioner for selection to the post of Police Constable Grade II was rejected on the ground that during certificate verification, the Selection Committee found that the appellant/writ petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding registration of criminal case against him in the application submitted pursuant to the notification. Challenging the same, he has filed the writ petition.

3. The Writ Court, taking into consideration the rival submission and relying upon the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ashuthosh Pawar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh [2018 (1) CTC 335], decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [2016 (8) SCC 471] and Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar in C.A.No.4960 of 2021 dated 25.08.2021, ultimately dismissed the writ petition observing as under:

“6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, his all fairness, submitted the fact that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal both in the application as well as during verification. However, he made an attempt to distinguish the suppression by stating that it is not a material suppression, but the offences are trivial in nature and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered.

7. Beyond the registration of the criminal case, suppression itself is sufficient to reject the application. Even in cases, where there is no suppression, then also the competent Selection Committee is empowered to make independent assessment regarding the merits, antecedents, eligibility and suitability. The scope of judicial review is limited in this aspect. The decision of the Selection Committee becomes final in all respects. Writ against the decision of the Selection Committee needs to be entertained only if such decision is vitiated with malafides or on allegation of fraud or corruptive activities are established beyond any pale of doubt.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that regarding suppression no distinction need to be adopted.

When a suppression is apparent with reference to the registration of a criminal case that is sufficient enough to hold that the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief. Suppression cannot be quantified by stating that the offences are trivial in nature. Only in respect of heinous offences, the material facts are to be disclosed in the application. The application states that whether such circumstances, if the application says, 'No', then, it amounts to suppression of facts, if the criminal case registered against him. This being the principles to be adopted, the case of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding the registration of criminal cases both in the application as well