IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.No.33520 of 2017 E.Suresh S/o.M.Elumalai ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Director General of Police Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore Chennai-600 004.

2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai Chennai-600 002. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent dated 14.02.2017 in C.No.D2/1595/2013 and to quash the same as illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police Constable Grade II.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramamoorthi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader, for R1 Ms.D.Sowmidattan, Standing Counsel, for R2 *****

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 14.02.2017 issued by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner’s candidature for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II was rejected on the ground that the cut-off mark prescribed for the Backward Class community was 71, whereas the petitioner had secured only 69 marks.

2. Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued in the year 2012 for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II, the petitioner submitted his application seeking consideration for appointment. The petitioner secured 69 marks in the written examination as well as in the Physical Efficiency Test. Though he was not eligible for appointment to the Armed Reserve, he was found eligible for appointment to the Tamil Nadu Special Police, and his name was provisionally included in the selection list for the said post.

3. Upon verification of records, it was found that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case in C.C. No.98 of 2009, which ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 19.07.2010. The petitioner was, therefore, not considered for selection to the post of Tamil Nadu Special Police on the ground that he had suppressed the fact of his involvement in the said criminal case, though it had ended in acquittal.

4. Mr. M. Ramamoorthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and that he was acquitted by the trial Court on account of a settlement entered into between the parties, whereby the offences were compounded. He further submitted that the offences alleged were neither heinous nor serious but trivial in nature, and that suppression of such acquittal ought not to be a ground to reject his candidature for the post of Tamil Nadu Special Police. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in K. Sneha vs.

DGP and another in W.P. No.10788 of 2020 dated 06.10.2020.

5. Per contra, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the recruitment notification contains a clear and categorical stipulation requiring candidates to disclose their involvement in any criminal case and that the petitioner, having suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case which ended in acquittal, is not entitled to appointment to the said post. He further submitted that the petitioner was acquitted only on account of compounding of offences pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1181.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record have been duly considered.

7. The criminal case registered against the petitioner was for offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. During trial, the petitioner and the complainant entered into a c