Blog

Case Title:

The State of Tamil Nadu  and Anrs.     …Appellants
                         Vs
S.Govindaraj                                        … Respondent

Date of Decision:

                                 Reserved on: 08.03.2023

                                Delivered on:  16.06.2023

Coram:

                THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                          AND
       THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

Citation:

           W.A.No. 2746 of 2018 and CMP.No. 22611 of 2018

Introduction:

The writ petitioner/respondent had participated in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and passed the written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and medical test and he was disqualified since he was acquitted in a criminal case viz.Crime No.46 of 2011. The 3^rd appellant herein has passed rejection order in Na.Ka.No. A2(3)/49777/2012 dated 03.01.2013.

Facts:

The petitioner had passed the written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and medical test, he was disqualified on the basis of his involvement in ciriminal case and acquittal on the beneift of doubt. Challenging the same, the respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5718 of 2013, the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition directing the appellants herein to select the writ petitioner in the selection process. Challenging the same, the appellant/Government has preferred the instant Writ Appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Recruiting board could disqualify the petitioner
from the appointment?

Whether the claim of privilege by the respondents is justified or not?

Legal Analysis:

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants would submit that though the petitioner had passed the
written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and
medical test, he was disqualified on the basis of his involvement in
ciriminal case and acquittal on the beneift of doubt. The learned Single
Judge without considering the fact that a person acquittal on benefit of
doubt or discharged from his criminal case, can still be considered as
qualified for selection to Police Service, has allowed the writ petition
filed by the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the criminal case initiated against the respondent ended in acquittal. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the said aspect and quashed the rejection order passed by the 3rd appellant. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of Police Constable Grade II. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity, as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

Judgement:

It is clear from the records that the criminal case registered against the
respondent/writ petitioner had ended in honourable acquittal. The Writ Court has rightly considered these aspects in proper perspective and directed the department to complete the selection process and issue suitable appointment order to the writ petitioner.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, this
Writ Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the order of the Writ Court
dated 11.11.2016 made in W.P.No.5718 of 2013. The appellants are
directed to consider the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner
as laid down in paragraph 19(a) of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra and also in the light of the communication of the Director General of Police dated 17.12.2015 and issue necessary appointment orders to the respondent/writ petitioner, subject to the antecedents and character of the writ petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

Pending the recruitment process, if a candidate is discharged from the criminal case or acquitted in the criminal case, he/she shall be eligible to be considered for the next recruitment process as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules.” Since the candidate was eligible to the recruitment process he can’t be denied from recruitment process. So the court interpreted the case in right way and gave a good Judgement.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement