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.

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 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.

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 paragraph 14 of the order impugned, has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, where, he has quoted the following:-

“38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the