COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the common writ order dated 14.03.2024, passed in WP Nos.23300 & 23499 of 2023.

2.Writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The appellants had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Grade - II Police Constable for the year 2017 in pursuance to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. The appellants were successful in the written examination. They appeared for physical test and medical fitness. They were provisionally selected. During the course of certificate verification and conduct verification, the authorities have found that the appellants were involved in a criminal case in Crime No.184 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 452, 323, 506 (i) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. Appellants were acquitted in the criminal case in C.C.No.24 of 2016, by an order dated 24.05.2016, on the ground that the de facto complainant turned hostile. Thus, the selection committee rejected the candidature of the appellants. The appellants initially filed WP Nos.28487 & 28488 of 2017, challenging the rejection order dated 09.10.2017 and the said writ petitions had been withdrawn on 29.06.2018. After withdrawal of the writ petitions, the appellants had approached the Court by filing miscellaneous petitions seeking liberty to challenge the same order of rejection, dated 09.10.2017 and in pursuance to the liberty, fresh writ petitions had been instituted. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the recruitment was for the year 2017 and after a lapse of seven years, their candidature cannot be considered for selection to the post of Grade - II Police Constable. Thus, the present Intra Court appeals have been instituted.

3.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the acquittal granted on benefit of doubt was subsequently converted as honourable acquittal in the year 2019 after completion of selection. Moreover, the offences registered against the appellants cannot be construed as serious in nature. The appellants have not suppressed the fact regarding their involvement in the criminal case in the application. They have been provisionally selected and during certificate verification, the authorities rejected their candidature on the ground that the appellants have involved in criminal case. Therefore, the case of the appellants is to be considered for selection. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the following three judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court,

(i) C.Vijayaraja Vs.The Director General of Police and other in WP (MD) Nos.1, 1, 2, 1145 and 5190 of 2010 and 1 and 1525 of 2011 and 1, 2, 3, 10539 and 16858 of 2012, dated 26.03.2013.

(ii) Sivan Sakthi Vs. The Superintendent of Police in WP (MD) No.15688 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022.

(iii) P.Mohan Vs. The Director General of Police and two others, 1(2013 SCC Online Mad 1365). He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2(2024 INSC 131), wherein, the delay was held as not fatal for selection and therefore, the said principles are to be applied in the present case.

4.The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Sub Ordinate Service are crystal clear. Rule 13 (e) of the Rules contemplates “that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification”. Explanation (1) denotes that “a person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case”.

5.In the present case, though the appellants claim that they are subsequently honourably acquitted, their cases were cons