SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 42015

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice D. KRISHNAKUMAR,Honourable Mr Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.ARUNKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, – Respondent
WA(MD)/611/2022



A writ appeal is not maintainable if the appellant has already challenged the same order in a review application and an intracourt appeal, which were both dismissed.

Headnote:

WRIT APPEAL - REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR POLICE CONSTABLE - INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL CASE - SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT APPEAL - REVIEW APPLICATION - DISMISSAL - INTRACOURT APPEAL - DISMISSAL - RES JUDICATA

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was selected for the post of Police Constable Grade II but his application was rejected on the ground that he had suppressed information about his involvement in a criminal case. He challenged the rejection order in a writ petition, which was dismissed. He then filed a review application, which was also dismissed. He then filed an intracourt appeal, which was also dismissed. He has now filed the present writ appeal challenging the order passed in the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant had not disclosed in the application form about his involvement in a criminal case, from which he was acquitted, and that the acquittal was only based on the benefit of doubt. The court also held that the appellant had already challenged the dismissal of his review application in an intracourt appeal, which was dismissed. Therefore, the court held that the present writ appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had suppressed information about his involvement in a criminal case in his application form. 2. Whether the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case was based on the benefit of doubt. 3. Whether the present writ appeal was maintainable in light of the dismissal of the appellant's review application and intracourt appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: 1. A candidate is required to disclose all material information in their application form, including any involvement in criminal cases. 2. An acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not mean that the candidate was not involved in the criminal case. 3. The dismissal of a review application and an intracourt appeal bars the appellant from challenging the same order again in a subsequent writ appeal.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal.

W.A(MD) No.611 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 04.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

W.A.(MD) No.611 of 2022

C.Arunkumar

... Appellant

-vs-

1.The Director General of Police,

State Head Quarters Office,

Chennai – 4.

2.The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,

Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,

Pantheon Road, Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

3.The Superintendent of Police,

Madurai, Madurai District.

4.The Inspector of Police,

Chathirapatti Police Station,

Madurai District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section I5 of Letters Patent against

the order dated 10.05.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.12670 of 2018.

____________

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD) No.611 of 2022

For Appellant

:

Mr.R.Murugan

For Respondents

:

Mr.Veera Kathiravan,

Assisted by Mr.K.Balasubramani,

Special Govt. Pleader.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order dated 10.05.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.

12670 of 2018, the appellant has come forward with this writ appeal.

2. The appellant was selected for the post of Police Constable

Grade II for the year 2017 and thereafter, his application was rejected by

order dated 26.04.2018, on the ground that he was suppressed the

information of involvement in criminal case in C.C.No.242 of 2013. As

against the same, the appellant has filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.

12670 of 2018 and this Court, by order order dated 10.05.2019,

dismissed the same. Hence, the appellant has filed a review application

on 05.07.2019 in Rev.Apl.W.(MD)No.88 of 2021. The said review

application was also dismissed by this Court on 21.10.2021. Challenging

the aforesaid order passed in the review application, the appellant has

____________

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD) No.611 of 2022

filed an intra Court appeal in W.A.No.(MD)No.2105 of 2021. This Court

by order dated 22.11.2021, dismissed the said writ appeal. Therefore, the

appellant has now filed the instant writ appeal, challenging the order

passed in W.P.(MD)12670 of 2018, dated 10.05.2019.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

at the time of registration of FIR in Crime No.668 of 2012, the appellant

was a juvenile and he has not completed 18 years. He further submitted

that the learned Single Judge omitted to take note of the facts that the

case registered against juvenile cannot be taken into consideration as

involvement in criminal case and prior to the notification issued by the

Government, the criminal case as against the appellant was ended in

acquittal and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge warrants

interference.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents submitted that challenging the order passed in the writ

petition, the appellant has filed a review application in Rev.Apl.W.

(MD)No.88 of 2021. The said review application was also dismissed by

this Court on 21.10.2021. Challenging the aforesaid order passed in the

____________

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD) No.611 of 2022

review application, the appellant has filed an intra Court appeal in

W.A.No.(MD)No.2105 of 2021. This Court, by order dated 22.11.2021,

dismissed the said writ appeal without giving any liberty to the appellant

to challenge the said order. He further submitted that now the appellant

has filed the present writ appeal challenging the order passed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)12670 of 2018, dated 10.05.2019 and

therefore, this Writ Appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to

be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on

record.

6. On a perusal of the records, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top