##PAGE1##

W.A.No.613 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.03.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

W.A.No.613 of 2026

The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Building

Sathuvacheri, Vellore – 632 009. .. Appellant

Vs.

1. B.Bavithran

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus

Pantheon Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 31.07.2023 made in W.P.No.22103 of 2023.

For the Appellant : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General

assisted by Mr.S.John J. Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader

For the Respondents : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran for R1

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order

passed by the Writ Court dated 31.07.2023 made in W.P.No.22103

of 2023.

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/05/2026 12:56:20 pm )

W.A.No.613 of 2026

2. The first respondent/writ petitioner was one of the

candidates who participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Police Constable (Grade – II) as undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, In short, hereinafter referred as “TNUSRB”.. After the entire process was over, the candidature of the first respondent/writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that, his involvement in a criminal case even prior to the issuance of the notification has not been stated in the application submitted by him, thereby, there was a clear suppression on the part of the first respondent/writ petitioner, therefore, on that ground, his candidature was rejected. Challenging the same, he filed the said

writ petition.

3. The writ petition was heard along with several other writ

petitions which were of similar in nature or in respect of the same recruitment. All those writ petitions were heard and disposed of by

the common order dated 31.07.2023, which is impugned herein.

4. Insofar as the present case is concerned, that the first

respondent/writ petitioner was implicated in a criminal case for minor offences punishable under the provisions of IPC and a case

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/05/2026 12:56:20 pm )

W.A.No.613 of 2026

was conducted by the Competent Criminal Court, where, the first respondent/writ petitioner registered acquittal in the year 2018, but, it is to be made clear that the acquittal is based on benefit of doubt. Be that as it may, only in the year 2019, the notification was issued by the TNUSRB, pursuant to which, he made an application for the said recruitment. In the said application, his involvement in a criminal case and his registration of acquittal from the Competent Criminal Court of Law has not been mentioned or that has been suppressed. This was found by the employer or by the Recruiting Agency subsequently before finalizing the selection for recruitment,

based on which, his candidature was rejected.

5. When this was questioned, the Writ Court, having

considered the factual matrix that, he has registered acquittal and the case also was in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC and the allegations against him was that he abused the victim in filthy language and in respect of these alleged offences, he was able to register acquittal, of course, on the basis of benefit of doubt. When that being the position, that cannot be an impediment for selecting him and appointing him, if he is otherwise eligible, was the view

taken by the Writ Court.

Page 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/05/2026 12:56:20 pm )

W.A.No.613 of 2026

6. We have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional

Advocate General appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ

petitioner.

7. The learned Judge, in pa