Madras High Court
A.Simon William Rajadurai vs /42 on 29 August, 2025
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 08.08.2025
Pronounced On : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
and
WMP (MD) Nos. 13444, 13445, 14789, 19398, 19399 of 2018
A.Simon William Rajadurai,
1/29, South Street,
Irudayakulam,
Vickramasingapuram,
Tirunelveli District - 627 425.
... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.16737 of 2018
S.Ashok
S/o.Sekar
Behind Oid EB Office
Thirupachethi,Thirupuvanam Taluk
Sivagagai District. ... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.21518 of 2018
S. Senthurpandi,
S/o. Shanmugam,
Keezhakanchirankulam,
Chithirankudi,
Mudhukulathur Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.14891 of 2018
Vs.
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep,, by it’s Principal Secretary,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 002. ... 1st Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 600 004. ... 2nd Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
No.4, 9th Cross Street,
Indira Nagar,
Chennai - 600 020. ... 3rd Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli District. ... 4th Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
5.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... 5th Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
6.The Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District. ....1st Respondent in W.P.(MD) No.21518 of 2018
7.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Rep. by its Vice Chairman,
Having Office at
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
... 1st Respondent in W.P. (MD) No.14891 of 2018
2/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
8.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
.... 2nd Respondent in W.P. (MD) No.14891 of 2018
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.16737/2018.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tor any other
appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in
his proceedings e.f.vz;.m2/16223/2017 dated 14.02.2018 and
impugned proceedings C.NO.A2/16223/2017 dated 12.06.2018 and
quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police with all other service
and attendant benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'be Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.21518/2018.:
To issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka No.A3/9545/2017 dated
07.06.2018 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent
herein to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable as per the
selection list with due seniority in the Common Recruitment of Gr-II
Police Constables, Gr.II Jail Wardens and Firemen-2017 within a
reasonable time and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.
3/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.14891/2018.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated
24.04.2018 vide his Proceedings in C.No. A3/29576/2017 and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents No.l and 2
herein to appoint the Petitioner as a Armed Reserve Constable by
considering marks secured in the selection process conducted by the 1st
Respondent in response to his Advertisement No.ll7 for Common
Recruitment for the Post of Grade - II Police Constables (M&W), Grade -
II Jail Warders (M & W) and Firemen - 2017 and to pass such other
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP(MD) No. 13444 of 2018:
To grant an order of interim stay of all further proceedings of the
Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 24.04.2018 vide
his Proceedings in C.No.A3/29576/2017 pending disposal of the above
Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 13445 of 2018:
To grant an order of Interim injunction, directing the Respondent
to keep one Post of Grade – II Police Constable or Jail Warders Grade –
II or Firemen as Vacant, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and
thus render justice.
4/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 14789 of 2018:
To grant an ad-interim direction directing the respondents to
appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police pending disposal of the
above writ petition and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 19398 of 2018:
To dispense with production of original of the impugned order of
the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/9545/2017 dated 07.06.2018 for the
present and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 19399 of 2018:
To stay the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.
No.A3/9545/2017 dated 07.06.2018 pending disposal of the above writ
petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrence, Advocate
in W.P.(MD) No. 14891/2018
: Mr. Pandi Dorai, Advocate
in W.P.(MD) No. 16737/2018
: Mr.U.Appadurai, Advocate
in W.P.(MD) No. 21518/2018
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
In all Writ Petitions
5/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Certain categories of litigation seem destined never to fade from
the docket of this Court, even after being conclusively settled by a Larger
Bench of five Judges. One such recurring controversy concerns the
recruitment of police personnel, where the applicants are later found to
have a criminal background, or, in their applications, either furnish false
information or leave blank the column relating to antecedents.
3. As numerous judgments of Single Benches and Division
Benches on this issue had, on many occasions, taken conflicting views, a
Five-Judge Bench was constituted for an authoritative pronouncement.
The Larger Bench, in J. Alex Ponseelan v. The Director General of
Police, reported in 2014 (2) CTC 337, settled the matter once and for all.
Justice A. Selvam authored the opinion forming the majority view of the
Five-Judge Bench, which is recorded in paragraphs 81 to 84 as follows:
6/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018“81. A cursory look of the observation made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court would clearly go to show that police
force is a disciplined force, wherein a person who is
having atmost rectitude is eligible for recruitment. The
person who has involved in criminal case is totally unfit
for such recruitment.
82. Since the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mehar Singh’s case is similar to the object of
Explanations 1 and 2 of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, it is
needless to say that the same should be held as intra vires.
Further in view of the discussion made earlier, the law laid
down in Manikandan’s case reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, still holds field
and the same need not be overruled as the Special Leave
Petitions have been dismissed holding as follows:
“No ground is made out for our interference with the
impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petitions are
dismissed accordingly.”
83. It has become shunless to say that Clause IV of
Rule 14(b) together with Explanations 1 and 2 have been
introduced only for the purpose of recruiting persons who
are having rectitude and not persons involved in criminal
case(s). The Government of Tamil Nadu have introduced
the same with atmost summum bonum for the purpose of
maintaining a disciplined police force. Since Clause IV of
Rule 14(b) and its Explanations 1 and 2 have been
introduced with atmost good faith, nobody is entitled to
have a furtive look upon it.
84. It has already been discussed elaborately and
decided that the doubts raised by the learned Referring
Judge for making the present Reference are not legally
sustainable and further for the examples given by the
learned Referring Judge, the decision rendered in Mehar
Singh’s case reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases
685 by the Hon’ble Apex Court, stands as a befitting
answer, and therefore, there is no merit in the Reference in
question and answered the same accordingly and no other
points have been raised on either side.”
7/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
4. Justice R. Sudhakar, who presided over the Bench, concurred
with the opinion expressed by Justice A. Selvam and took the same view.
His concurring opinion is recorded in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said
judgment, which read as follows:
“21. I, therefore, answer the reference in the
following:
(i) The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this
Court in Manikandan’s case, reported in 2008 (2) CTC
97 is a good law.
(ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1
and 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service
Rules is intra vires of the Constitution, as has already
been held by the Full bench in the Manikandan’s case and
by the learned Single Judge in N.Veeramani’s case.
22. Before parting, I may observe that I have had
the privilege of perusing the judgments proposed by my
learned brothers Justice S.Tamilvanan and Justice
A.Selvam and it had been my endevour not to repeat the
reasonings of A.Selvam J. with whom I respectfully agree
and, with utmost respect, I dissent from the views of
S.Tamilvanan, J”
5. Since the Larger Bench affirmed the decision of the earlier Full
Bench in Manikandan’s case (cited supra), it becomes necessary to refer
to the reasoning adopted by the Full Bench on the issue of recruitment of
police personnel with adverse antecedents. The Full Bench held as
8/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
follows:
“In answer to the reference made to the Full Bench,
we hold-
(a) that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of
Rule 14 (b) of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate
Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or
discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as
disqualified for selection to the police service of the State
and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified;
and
(b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the
application form, either his involvement in a criminal case
or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would
entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on
the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective
of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.
In view of the above, all the writ petitions fail and
they are dismissed. No costs.”
6. Following the disposal of the matter by the Larger Bench, the
Director General of Police issued a communication in Office
Memorandum in R.C.No.1268/20889/Rect.II(1)/2015 dated 17.12.2015,
wherein paragraphs 6 to 11 read as follows:
6. All the appointing authorities are requested to go
through the relevant rules, court orders (Full Judgement
available in High Court website), details of criminal case,
role of the candidate in that case, present stage of case,
judgement delivered etc, in a careful manner and issue
necessary endorsement regarding rejection of their
candidature under proper acknowledgement.
7. The following points should also be considered
before issuance of the endorsement.
9/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
a. Every case has to be judged on its merits.
b. “Honourable acquittal” restores the right of
individual. Hence honourable acquittal before the date of
police verification means that the candidate must be
considered favourably.
c. A case referred on “Mistake of Fact” has to be
favourably viewed for the candidate.
d. Discharge on technical grounds (hostile
witnesses) does not entitle the candidate for automatic
clearance and the appointing authorities may still reject
the candidature on ground of unsuitability to do the
nature of the duty.
e. Suppression of involvement in a case still under
investigation or trial or not ending in honourable
acquittal is a ground sufficient for rejection of the
candidate.
f. Petty cases should not lead to over penalization.
8. It is also informed that the following types of
candidates were considered for appointment to the post of
SI of Police / Gr.II PCs on earlier occasions:
i)The candidates acquitted honourably prior to
Police Verification
ii) The personal released under probation of
offenders act were treated as not involved in a criminal
case, in view of Section 12 of the PO Act 1958 which
stipulates that convicts released on Probation of
Conduct Act or after admonition by the Court shall not
suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction.
iii) The persons released under Juvenile Act were
treated as not involved in a criminal case. Section 19 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act 2000 which stipulates that a Juvenile has committed
an offence and has been dealt with under provision of
this act shall not suffer disqualification, if any attached
to conviction of an offence under such law.
iv) If any political affiliation on the candidate
comes to notice during the Police verification, it will not
be held against him, unless he is having other bad10/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018antecedents. However, he shall be instructed not to
involved in such activities as per conduct rules.
v) The candidates whose names are deleted from
the charge sheet.
vi) The cases treated as Mistake of fact prior to
police verification.
vii) Some of the candidates involved in petty
cases were considered.
viii) Accident cases were considered if the case
was pending at the time of police verification and if
there was no suppression of fact.
ix) The case in which the I.O. registered the case
against a minor candidates under IPC and not under
Juvenile Justice Act, his case were considered for
appointment.
x) The cases where fine was imposed up to
Rs.2000/- were considered.
9. The date of Police Verification is the date on
which the verifying Officer (ie. Not below the rank of SI
of Police) is counter signing the verification Roll)
10. The persons who are acquitted under the
benefit of doubt (or) hostility of complainant will be
treated as involved in criminal case and he will not be
considered for appointment as per Rule 14(b) of
TNSPSS Rules (or) Rule 13 of TNPSS Rules.
11. Regarding “Honourable Acquittal”, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil Appeal
No. 4842/2013 in their orders, dated 02.07.2013 (arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 38886/2012) filed by the
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another
(Appellants) – versus- Mehar Singh have made
observations in Para 21 of the said order and the same
may be referred)”
7. Therefore, the Full Bench decision in Manikandan’s case (cited
supra), the Larger Bench judgment in Alex Ponseelan (cited supra), and
11/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police pursuant to these
decisions will alone govern the field. In the light of the above, the three
writ petitions, which were heard together, are to be considered by this
Court. As the facts in each of these cases differ, they are dealt with
separately in accordance with their respective factual matrices.
8. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018 (A. Simon William
Rajadurai) is concerned, the petitioner has been engaged in several
rounds of litigation. By order dated 29.04.2005, the Director General of
Police informed him that his selection for the post of Sub-Inspector,
pursuant to the recruitment for the year 1997-98, had been referred to the
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for necessary action.
Thereafter, his father, S. Anthony Michael, began addressing petitions to
various authorities, including the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
9. However, the petitioner thereafter filed W.P. No. 1450 of 2006
seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board to recruit and appoint him in terms of the directions contained in
the judgment dated 25.02.2005 in W.P. Nos. 17639 to 17660 of 2001.
The matter came up before this Court and was heard by Justice R.
12/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
Sudhakar, who, by order dated 11.03.2010, disposed of the writ petition.
In that order, the learned Judge observed as follows:
“5. In view of the nature of the relief sought for and
the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that a direction can
be issued to consider the various representations on merits
and also taking into consideration the memorandum of the
second respondent dated 23.9.2009. The second respondent
is directed to consider the dispose of the representation
dated 12.10.2005 made by the petitioner and dispose of the
same on merits and in accordance with law on or before
29.04.2010. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”
10. However, as the respondents failed to comply with the said
order, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 775 of 2011, which was
disposed of by the same learned Judge by order dated 21.10.2011. In
paragraphs 2 and 3 of that order, it was stated as follows:
“2. The direction of this court is to consider the
representation dated 12.10.2005 and that has been
considered by the proceedings dated 28.04.2010 passed
by the respondent Director General of Police, by a
detailed order. In such view of the matter, the
respondent disobeying the order does not arise.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge
the proceedings dated 29.4.2010, if he desires to do so,
in accordance with law.
3.Since the order of this Court has been complied
with, the Contempt Petitioner is closed.”
11. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner filed yet another writ
13/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
petition, W.P. No. 12330 of 2012, before the Principal Bench, seeking to
set aside the order dated 14.03.2012 issued by the Recruitment Board and
praying for appointment. This writ petition was heard along with a batch
of other petitions by this Court, and Justice M. Sathyanarayan, by order
dated 27.01.2016, disposed of the entire batch. The learned Judge
classified the cases into three categories:
• Category I: Matters remanded by the
Division Bench for consideration based on the order
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Senthil
Kumar’s case.
• Category II: Cases filed before the Principal
Bench on the strength of the orders of the Supreme
Court in K.K. Senthil Kumar’s case. The petitioner’s
writ petition fell under Category II(a) and was listed
at Sl. No. 50.
• Category III: Fresh cases filed before the
Principal Bench relying on the orders of the Supreme
Court in K.K. Senthil Kumar’s case.
12. In the batch of cases, the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner were recorded in paragraph 7 of the order. In paragraph 45, the
learned Judge observed that the petitioners falling under Category III
were all “fence-sitters” who had approached the Court only after the
order was passed in Senthil Kumar’s case. Consequently, their cases
were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. While
14/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
dealing with Issue No. 4, the learned Judge, in paragraphs 42, 43, and 45,
held as follows:
“42. In the light of the findings /answers given to
Issue No.I to III, the petitioners in Category I and II, both in
Principal Bench as well as Madurai Bench, are entitled to
succeed. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.25146 /2014
is concerned, if records are available he has to undergo
viva-voce test; otherwise the findings rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 5 and 6 of the decision in
K.K.Senthil Kumar’s case would come into operation.
43. This Court has to deal with Category III cases
where the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ
petitions during the years 2014 and 2015 respectively, after
the above cited judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in K.K.Senthil Kumar’s case. It is to be
noted at this juncture that the petitioners were fence sitters
and waited on the side lines as to the result of the litigation
and after becoming aware of the judgment in K.K.Senthil
Kumar’s case referred to supra, has jumped into the fray by
filing writ petitions during the years 2014 and 2015
respectively and pray for their appointment as Sub-
Inspectors of Police.
45. The petitioners in Category III cases has
approached the Court only after the judgment in K.K.Senthil
Kumar’s case and did not agitate their grievance for quite
longtime. On account of such a lapse of time and belated
approach, they are not entitled to get the relief of parity with
petitioners with regard to Category I and II, though they are
similarly placed. In the considered opinion of the Court, the
claim of the petitioners are hit by delay and laches in the
facts and circumstances of their case and hence, equitable
jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in their
favour.”
15/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
13. Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Judge, the
petitioner filed Review Petition No. 23 of 2016 in W.P. No. 12330 of
2012, seeking a review of the order insofar as it related to the grant of
proper seniority among the in-service candidates. The learned Judge
dismissed the review petition, observing as follows:
“The only grievance expressed by the petitioner is
that though he is an in-service candidate, he has not been
assigned with proper seniority and therefore came forward
to file this Review Petition and sought for appropriate
direction in this regard.
2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner who would submit that despite
of very many representations submitted in this regard, no
proper response is forthcoming and though, this Court has
passed a positive order dated 27.01.2016, the respondents
are not implementing the same. On account of the
pendency of the Writ Appeal and despite the fact no
interim order are in operation, the respondents are yet to
be comply with the orders. Therefore, prays for
appropriate direction.
3. Per contra, Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for respondent would
submit that Writ Appeals are pending adjudication and
listed for hearing before the concerned Hon’ble Bench
during next week.
4. In the considered opinion of this court, this Court
in exercise of its review jurisdiction, cannot entertain the
request made by the petitioner as regards seniority which
may be subject to the result of Writ Appeal. Hence, he is
always at liberty to workout his remedy in accordance
with law before the Competent Forum.
16/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
5. Therefore the Review Application is dismissed
subject to the above observation”
14. Subsequent to the above proceedings, the 4th respondent in
WP(MD)No.16737 of 2018, Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range, upon noting that the petitioner had passed the Grade–
II Police Constable examination in 2017, conducted an enquiry into his
antecedents and character. By order dated 14.02.2018, it was held that
the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Sub-Inspector, as he
was the second accused in a criminal case and the post required an
unimpeachable and satisfactory past record. The petitioner thereafter
submitted a representation requesting reconsideration of the decision,
which was rejected by the same officer by order dated 12.06.2018,
reading as follows:
“2) In his representations dated 26.04.2018 and
25.05.2018 addressed to the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai, he has informed that the both FIRs
in V.K.Puram PS Cr.Nos.44/11 and 45/11 are falsely
narrated stories of the complainants. In this connection
he has been dealt with in PR No.36/11 u/r 3(b) of
TNPSS(D&A) Rules and he was imposed with the minor
punishments. As he was found fit during the medical
examination he has requested to issue appointment order
for the post of SI of Police for the year 1997-98.
3) GrIPC 586, Simon William Rajadurai,
Pappakudi PS, Tirunelveli district has involved in two
17/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
criminal cases in V.K.Puram PS Cr.No. 44/2011 u/s 147,
148, 341, 323,294(b), 342, 353, 506(ii) IPC and
V.K.Puram PS Cr.No.45/2011 u/s 147,148,294(b),
353,323,332,506(ii) IPC. He is the accused (A2) in both
cases. He has obtained anticipatory bail as per the High
Court, Madurai Bench order dated 03.03.2011 in Crl.OP
Nos. 2800/2011 (Cr.No.44/2011) and 2821/2011 (Cr.No.
45/2011). He has surrendered before the Judicial
Magistrate, Ambai on 28.04.2018 and obtained condition
bail for one week. Charge sheets in these cases were filed
on 30.04.2018 before the Judicial magistrate,
Ambasamudram in CC Nos. 124/18 and 125/18. These
cases are posted to 26.06.2018 for accused appearance.
4) The extract of Rule-13 of Special Rules for
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is as follows:-
Rule 13.Qualifications:- No person shall be eligible
for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless
he satisfies the appointing authority –
(a)that he is of sound health, active habits and free
from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such
service;
(b)that his character and antecedents are such as to
qualify him for such service;
(c)that such person does not have more than one
wife living; or if such person is a woman, that she is not
married to any person who has a wife living; and
(d)that he does not have knock knees or bow legs or
flat feet.
(e ) that he has not involved in any criminal case
before police verification:
4) As it revealed during the police verification that
he has involved in criminal cases and that cases are still
pending, Gr.I.PC 586, A.Simon William Rajadurai, is not
a fit person to be issued with appointment order for the
post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence, his request is
rejected.”18/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
15. In the present W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018, the petitioner
challenges the aforesaid two orders. He seeks their quashing and prays
for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police with all service and attendant
benefits. When the writ petition came up for admission on 30.07.2018,
notice was accepted on behalf of the respondents. Since then, more than
seven years have passed. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support
of the writ petition, the petitioner, while referring to his earlier W.P. No.
12330 of 2012 and the review petition filed thereafter, also stated that he
intended to file an appeal regarding seniority and other consequential
benefits.
16. Though more than seven years have passed, the petitioner has
not apprised this Court of the intended appeal or its outcome. This
omission constitutes a serious lapse on the part of both the petitioner and
his counsel, as they failed to keep the Court informed of other
proceedings initiated by the petitioner. Upon verification, it was found
that the petitioner had filed Writ Appeal No. 673 of 2019, which was
dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 05.03.2019. In that order,
the Division Bench held as follows:
5. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P.No.12330
of 2012 praying for the issuance of a Writ of19/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings
dated 14.3.2012 and consequently direct the second
respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub
Inspector. This writ petition was tagged along with a
batch of cases in W.P.No.26325 of 2015 and by a
common order dated 27.1.2016, the relief sought for by
the petitioner was granted, the writ petition was
allowed and there was a direction to the respondents to
give appointment to the appellant as the Sub-Inspector
subject to being declared fit after usual medical
examination and suitable after police verification as to
his antecedents.
6. It appears that the said order dated 27.1.2016
has not been complied with till date on account of
police verification with regard to the antecedents of the
appellant. The appellant, not satisfied with the relief
granted in the said order dated 27.1.2016 in WP.No.
12330 of 2012, filed a review petition before the
learned Single Judge in R.P.No.23 of 2016. In the said
review petition, apart from other points, the appellant
contended that his seniority had to be fixed along with
the candidates, who were appointed pursuant to
1997-98 selection. However, the said review petition
was dismissed on 24.3.2017 noting that as against the
common order dated 27.1.2016 in a batch of writ
petitions, writ appeals are pending and that the seniority
claim of the appellant would be subject to the outcome
of the writ appeals.
7. It is submitted before us by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the order dated 27.01.2016 passed
in favour of the appellant has also been challenged by
other candidates and that the appeals are pending.
8. In our considered view, the appellant can have
no grievance against the order in W.P.No.12330 of
2012, which was allowed by order 27.1.2016. In fact, in
that writ petition, the relief granted was only to appoint
him as the Sub-Inspector. However, it was not fructified
as there were certain doubts with regard to the
appellant’s criminal antecedents, which are in the
process of verification. Hence, we are also of the20/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018considered view that the appellant has not made out a
case for interfering with the order in W.P.No.12330 of
2012. In fact, the writ appeal is misconceived since the
present writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
10. It is needless to add that as observed by the
learned Single Judge in the order dated 24.3.2017 in
R.P.No.23 of 2016, the seniority issue is subject to
outcome of the writ appeals and apart from that, it is a
fresh cause of action and it is always open to the
appellant to agitate before the appropriate forum
provided the order dated 27.01.2016 passed in W.P.No.
12330 of 2012 is sustained and if he is selected and
appointed after verification of his antecedents.”
17. From the Division Bench order referred to above, it is evident
that the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld, and the
petitioner’s case was to be considered subject to medical examination
and police verification of his antecedents. It is also clear that the
petitioner had been involved in two criminal cases—Crime No. 44 of
2011 and Crime No. 45 of 2011—wherein serious charges were levelled
against him, and he was arrayed as the second accused in both matters.
The petitioner thereafter filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17164 of 2018 seeking
to quash the criminal case pending in C.C. No. 124 of 2018 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. The petition was allowed
on 26.09.2018, and the learned Judge, after examining the defacto
21/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
complainant in open court and recording his statement, quashed the
criminal proceedings, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to
Rojavanam Home for the Aged and Poor. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
order, it was stated as follows:
“4.The defacto complainant was present before
this Court. This Court personally enquired him
regarding the incident. The defacto complainant
informed this Court that there was a dispute between
two parties and in the heat of the moment, the
petitioners prevented the revenue officials from
performing their duties. He thereafter, stated that now
that the petitioners have realized their mistake and have
tendered their apology, there is no requirement to
continue with the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that many of the petitioners did not resist the
revenue officials and they were only present in the
scene of occurrence. Any how, the learned counsel for
the petitioners would submit that in order to give a
quietous to the whole issue, each of the petitioner had
given apology letter, expressing their regreat with
regard to the incident that took place on 30.01.2011.”
18. The other criminal case was heard by a different learned Judge.
The petitioner’s Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17275 of 2018 was likewise quashed,
the Court following the earlier judgment and also taking into account the
apology and undertaking furnished by the persons concerned. In
paragraph 6 of the order dated 26.11.2018, it was stated as follows:
22/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018“6. In view of the earlier proceedings being
quashed by this Court by order dated 26.09.2018 in
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.16316 and 17164 of 2018, this Court
enquired the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and he
would submit that there was an agitation in the village in
the morning when the revenue officials have attempted to
remove the encroachments and that the present case is
registered in respect of subsequent incident. He would
further submit that as on date, there is no problem in the
village and the first accused and their men have also
given a letter of undertaking not to create such problem
and also have tendered their apology expressing their
regret with regard to the incident took place on
30.01.2011. He would further submit that there is no
objection if the proceedings being quashed by following
the orders of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD). Nos.16316 and
17164 of 2018, dated 26.09.2018.”
19. Although the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court—
through an additional typed set filed after the institution of the present
writ petition—the subsequent quashing of the criminal proceedings by
two learned Judges, he failed to disclose the following three cases
instituted by him after filing this writ petition and prior to the hearing of
the matter and reservation of orders. Those cases are as follows:
W.P.(MD) No. Date of Disposal
a. 15190 /2021 08.11.2023
b. 25477/2022 14.11.2024
c. 12741/2024 14.06.2024
23/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
20. These three writ petitions were directly connected to the
petitioner’s service record, and certain relevant facts emerge from them.
It is evident that the petitioner has, almost every year, been filing either a
writ petition or a review application before this Court, thereby adding to
the Court’s burden. The records reveal that the petitioner was placed
under suspension on 10.02.2011 on the ground of his involvement in a
criminal case. This suspension was revoked on 28.12.2011. Thereafter, a
charge memo under Rule 3(b) was issued to him, culminating in the
imposition of punishment in P.R. No. 36 of 2011 dated 01.03.2013. His
subsequent appeal and revision petitions were also dismissed. The period
of suspension from 01.01.2011 to 28.12.2011 was treated as eligible
leave.
21. In the first writ petition, which was disposed of on 08.11.2023,
the learned Judge passed the following order:
“4. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the
departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings
initiated as against the writ petitioner have culminated and
therefore, there is no legal impediment for the authorities to
consider the request of the writ petitioner for regularizing
the suspension period.
5. In view of the above said facts, the fifth respondent
herein is directed to consider the request of the petitioner24/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018for regularization of service of the petitioner during the
suspension period based upon the Rule 54 of the
Fundamental Rules as applicable and pass orders on merits
in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
22. Subsequently, the petitioner filed two more writ petitions—one
in 2022 and another in 2024—both seeking the identical relief of
regularising the suspension period. The 2024 writ petition was taken up
for hearing first, and the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of the
earlier writ petition so that both could be heard together. The 2024 writ
petition was disposed of on 14.06.2024, with the Court holding as
follows:
“7. As the petitioner has been given with the
charge under Section 17 (b) and at the conclusion of the
proceedings he was given with the minor penalty of
postponement of one increment, the authority concerned
can reconsider the request of the petitioner to consider
his period of suspension as that of duty in the light of the
earlier judgment rendered in Review Application
(MD)No.139 of 2015 as well as in the light of the
Fundamental Rules 54, 54A and 54B.
8. In view of the afore-stated reasons, the
impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted
back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration. The
5th respondent shall consider and pass orders afresh
within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.”
25/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
23. Therefore, when W.P.(MD) No. 25477 of 2022 was taken up
for hearing, the matter having already been disposed of, the learned
Judge passed the following order:
“3.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
WP(MD).No.15190 of 2021, the third respondent herein
has passed an order dated 04.04.2022, treating the
suspension period as eligible leave period, instead of
treating it as duty period. This order was also challenged
by the petitioner before this Court in WP(MD)No.12741
of 2024 and this Court, by order dated 14.06.2024,
disposed that writ petition, by remitting the matter for
fresh consideration to the third respondent herein.
4.It is reported that the third respondent herein has
now passed a fresh order on 18.09.2024, pursuant to the
direction issued in WP(MD)No. 12741 of 2024, dated
14.06.2024. This order dated 18.09.2024 has also been
served on the petitioner.”
24. As far as the matters before the Madurai Bench are concerned,
including the present writ petition, the same counsel has been on record.
It was incumbent upon him to inform this Court that the petitioner had
obtained the aforesaid orders, which bear directly on his service record.
The present writ petition arises from the selection process for the post of
Sub-Inspector for the year 1997-98. Now, after the lapse of more than 27
years, the petitioner has been relentlessly pursuing this litigation without
wavering in his resolve.
26/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
25. In view of the relevant service rule and the clarification issued
by the Director General of Police, as extracted above, any subsequent
order quashing the criminal proceedings will have no bearing on the
petitioner’s earlier date of selection. Even the Division Bench judgment
dated 05.06.2023 in W.A.(MD) No. 938 of 2020 and batch cases granted
reliefs peculiar to those matters, which have no application to the present
case. In the present writ petition, the 5th respondent has filed a counter
affidavit dated 24.01.2019. In that affidavit, after referring to the
previous proceedings and Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
Service Rules, it has been averred in paragraphs 9, 10, and 7 as follows:
“9.…he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police for direct recruitment for the year 1997-98, under
open competition in which the selection process
conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board, Chennai. After completion of the
selection stages of physical, written and interview
process, the uniformed services recruitment board did not
consider the petitioners name for selection of Sub-
Inspectors post provisionally for the year 1997-1998,
since the petitioner had not obtained required cut off
marks in the selection. In view of his non selection in the
Sub-Inspectors recruitment, he preferred petition to the
Director General of Police, Chennai with requisition to
include his name in the selection list of Sub-Inspectors
recruitment for the year 1997-1998. Thereafter his
request had not been considered by the Director General
of Police, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner
alongwith the other persons who were also attended the
Sub-Inspectors selection process during the year
1997-1998, but had not been provisionally selected for27/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018the post, moved the Hon’ble Madras High Court through
writ petitions with requisition to include their names in
the selection list of Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year
1997-1998…”
“….in W.P.Nos. 26325/2015 and batch cases in
respect of the writ petitioners failing under cat-I and cat-
II specified in the said order and appoint the 88 Writ
Petitioners as Sub Inspector of Police, as of today, as a
fresh entrant subject to their fulfillment of the conditions
laid down in the said High Court order, such as securing
more than final lowest cut-off marks, medically fit and
clearance from the police verification etc. The
Government also directed that these Writ Petitioners shall
be placed below the directly recruited Sub Inspector of
Police of the year 2015 as directed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras. In all these paragraphs, the petitioner
has narrated about his appearance in selection process,
marks obtained by him and mentioned about the various
writ petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court. Since the
petitioners prayer had been considered and orders issued
by Hon’ble Court …..”
“10……His suitability was asserted in proper
perspective for issuing appointment order as Sub
Inspector of Police. During the Police verification it was
revealed that the Writ Petitioners has involved in 2
criminal cases in V.K.Puram PS Cr.No.44/2011 u/s
147,148, 341, 323, 294(b), 342, 353, 506(ii) IPC and
45/2011 u/s 147, 148, 294(b), 353, 323, 332, 506(ii) IPC.
He is the accused (A2) in both cases. He has obtained
anticipatory bail as per High Court Madurai Bench order
dated 03.03.2011 in Crl.OP.Nos. 2800/2011 (Cr.No.
44/2011) and 2821/2011 (Cr.No.45/2011). He has
surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate,
Ambasamudram on 28.04.2018 and obtained condition
bail for one week. Charge sheet in this cases were filed
on 30.04.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate,
Ambasamudram in CC No. 124/2018 and 125/2018. As
per Rule 13(e ) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service, no person shall be eligible for
appointment to the service by direct recruitment, if he has28/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018involved in any criminal case before Police verification.
Hence the Writ petitioner was issued with endorsement in
C.No.A2/16223/2017 dated 14.02.2018 and 12.06.2018
by the 4th respondent by rejecting his candidature for
appointment as SI. His suitability for the post was
thoroughly assessed before rejecting his candidature for
the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Hence the contention
of the writ petitioner is not acceptable.”“7. During the Police verification it is revealed that
the Writ Petitioner has involved in criminal cases that
cases are still pending. Hence the Writ Petitioner was
given endorsement in C.No.A2/16223/2017, dated
14.02.2018 and 12.06.2018 by the 4th respondent by
rejecting his candidature for appointment as Sub-
Inspector of Police.”
26. At the time when the petitioner sought appointment to the post
of Sub-Inspector, he was serving as a Police Constable and was involved
in two criminal cases of a serious nature, the charges including
obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their duties. The
petitioner subsequently managed to have both cases quashed—by
examining the Village Administrative Officer before this Court even
prior to trial, and by furnishing an undertaking as to future conduct along
with an apology. However, all these steps were taken after the filing of
the present writ petition and do not, in any manner, advance his claim.
The petitioner was also placed under suspension pending enquiry on a
Rule 3(b) charge, though ultimately let off with a minor penalty, enabling
29/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
him to have the suspension regularised with pay. These circumstances,
however, have no bearing on his entitlement to appointment as Sub-
Inspector, which was rightly rejected on the ground of his involvement in
criminal cases at the relevant time. Consequently, no relief can be
granted to him based on the Full Bench decision in Manikandan’s case
or the Larger Bench decision in Alex Ponseelan’s case, and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
27. In W.P.(MD) No. 14891 of 2018, the petitioner,
S. Senthurpandi, participated in the selection process for appointment as
Grade–II Police Constable. After the completion of the selection process,
an enquiry into his antecedents revealed that he had been involved in a
criminal case, in which he was later acquitted on the benefit of doubt.
However, while filling up the attestation form submitted to the
authorities, the petitioner failed to disclose these facts truthfully.
Consequently, by order dated 24.10.2017, he was informed that his claim
stood rejected.
28. The petitioner challenged the said order in W.P.(MD) No.
30/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
20637 of 2017, which was disposed of by the learned Judge on
24.01.2018. In that order, there was no reference to either the Full Bench
decision in Manikandan’s case (cited supra) or the Larger Bench
decision in Alex Ponseelan’s case (cited supra). Instead, the learned
Judge relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court —
Joginder Singh and Avtar Singh—and, holding that the parameters laid
down in Avtar Singh’s case had not been applied, issued the following
directions:Avtar Singh’s case had not been followed, issued the
following directions:
“4…….As already pointed out, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court specifically observed that even if there is
suppression in the case of a deserving candidate, it is
even open to the employer to apply the reformative
principle and condone the lapse. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition
will have to be set aside and the matter remitted to the
file of the second respondent for fresh consideration.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed
by quashing the order impugned in this writ petition and
the matter is remitted to the file of the second
respondent, who in turn, shall consider the case of the
petitioner herein and take a decision afresh, within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.”
29. Pursuant to the said directions, the Superintendent considered
the matter and rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding as follows:
31/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018“7. Moreover a batch writ petitions, which
challenged the validity of Rule 14(b) of TN Special Police
Subordinate Service Rules, were decided in Manikandan’s
case reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 case as follows:-
“The non-selection of the writ petitioners of the
rejection of their candidatures by the Respondents, either
on the basis of their involvement in criminal cases on the
basis of suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid
and justified..
That the failure of a person to disclose in the
application form, either his involvement in a criminal case
or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would
entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on
the ground of concealment of material fact, irrespective of
the ultimate outcome of the criminal trial.
8. While observing the questions of suppression of
facts in various cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its
order dated 21.07.2016 in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and others in SCC 471-2006(8) has held in “Union of India
and others Vs. Bipad Banjan Gayem (2018) 11 SCC 314”
and “State of West Bengal and others Vs. S.K.Nazrul Islam
(2011) 10 SCC 184” that the candidates could not claim for
equity and were ajudged to be unsuitable for the
appointment for the suppression of pending criminal cases
while filing the applications.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in (Dhaya
sankar Yadav Vs.Union of India and others 2010 (14) SCC
103 that “the candidate will have to answer the questions
truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or
suppression or false statement therein, by itself would
demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a
uniformed Police Force”
10. All the aspects in this regard were meticulously
considered afresh with reference to the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, direction of the
Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.32/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018(MD) No. 20637 of 2017 dated 24.01.2018 and the
guidelines issued in Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamil Nadu
Special Subordinate Service Rules and it is ordered that
Thiru.S.Senthur Pandi (Enrolment No. 2800907) is found
unfit to be appointed as Gr II PC in the Force.”
30. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been
filed. When the matter came up on 11.07.2018, the learned Special
Government Pleader took notice. Pursuant to the notice issued by this
Court, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition filed a detailed counter
affidavit dated 14.10.2024. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit,
it was stated as follows:
“5……For subjecting him to Police verification
of character and antecedents, he was summoned to the
District police office, Ramanathapuram on
14.09.2017 and he was given Verification Roll Form
containing 22 columns to be filled up and submitted
by him. In reply to the questions in column No.15, 16
and 18 of the Verification Roll Form, he has
mentioned that he was acquitted in Crime No.
87/2012 of Periyur Police station, Ramanathapuram
District. This form which was filled up and submitted
by him was sent to the concerned jurisdiction Police
station to verify his character and antecedents. The
concerned Station House Officer and the Inspector of
Police, Special Branch, Ramanathapuram have
reported that he was involved in Crime No.87/2012 of
Peraiyur Police station, Ramanathapuram District u/s
294(b) 323, IPC r/w 5 of PPDL Act which is a serious
crime and the petitioner was arrayed as A1 registered
on 27.11.201 and the case ended in acquittal on
12.01.2017 on the ground of benefit of doubt in the
court of Learned Additional District Judge, (Fast33/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018Track court) Paramakudi vide CC No. 68/2015 U/s
235(1) Cr.PC. On verification of OMR application
submitted by the Petitioner at the time of filing
application in reply to the Question in column No.26
and 26(a) of the OMR Application Form, he has
mentioned that no case is pending against him. As
per rule 13(b) and (e) of Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Services, no person shall be eligible for
appointment to the service by direct recruitment
unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his
character and antecedents are such as to qualify him
for such service and that he has not involved in any
criminal case before police verification. As per
explanation (1) of rule 13(e) of Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service Rules a person who is acquitted
on benefit of doubt due to the fact that the
complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person
involved in a criminal case. The constitutional
validity of the above said rule has been upheld by the
full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.
38289/2005 dated 28.02.2008.
6. It is submitted that the case of Crime No.
87/2012 of Peraiyur Police Station, he was acquitted
on the ground of benefit of doubt. Therefore, as per
rules, he was treated as a person involved in a
criminal case and he suppressed this fact of
involvement in the criminal case. Hence he is not
eligible for appointment to the service in the Police
Department. Accordingly, he was served with an
endorsement dated 24.10.2017 in C.No.A3/9645/2017
of the second respondent herein informing that he is
not fit for appointment as Grade II Police Constable.”
31. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Superintendent
of Police, and I see no reason to interfere with it. Incidentally, my
34/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018attention was drawn to an order of the Division Bench, of which I was a
member, in W.A.(MD) No. 439 of 2020 dated 25.06.2025. In paragraph
7 of that judgment, we allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge, observing as follows:
“7. Suppression of fact is a ground for rejection
of candidature. The selection is to the post of Grade II
Police Constable in Uniformed Services. Even if a
candidate has not suppressed the fact regarding the
registration of criminal case, still the Selection
Committee is empowered to assess the antecedents of a
person for selection to the post of Uniformed Services.
It is a disciplined force and character and antecedents
are of paramount importance. The Hon’ble Apex Court
time and again reiterated that selection to Uniformed
Services are to be made by the Committee and the
decision of the Committee becomes final since it
involves verification of antecedents of a person. The
Court cannot substitute the views of the Selection
Committee in such matters, where the Committee
formed an opinion that a particular candidate is not fit
for Uniformed Services. Therefore, the reason stated by
the Writ Court that there is no application of mind,
seems to be incorrect. The file produced before this
Court would show that the respondent has suppressed
the fact regarding registration of a criminal case against
him. Thus, the writ order dated 08.01.2019 passed in
W.P.(MD).No.24995 of 2018 is infirm and
consequently, the same is set aside.”
32. Hence, no case has been made out, and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
35/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
33. In W.P.(MD) No. 21518 of 2018 (S. Ashok), the petitioner
challenges the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Sivagangai. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.(MD) No. 23316
of 2017, which was disposed of by a learned Judge on 09.01.2018,
directing the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh.
Pursuant to that direction, the impugned order came to be passed. In
paragraph 3 of the said order, it was stated as follows:
“3. Nkw;fz;l tpz;zg;gjhuh; jpU.S.mNrhf; vd;gth;
kPjhd tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; kPJ
jpUg;ghr;Nrj;jp fhty; epiya Fw;w fz;.98/2014 gphpT
387> 506(ii) IPC, gpufhuk; 27.04.2014 md;W tof;F gjpT
nra;ag;gl;L> khdhkJiu Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLth;
ePjpkd;wj;jpy; CC.No.433/14d;gb tof;F
eilngw;wJ. ,t;tof;fpy; jpU.S.mNrhf; vd;gth; A3
vjphp Mthh;. ,jpy; 06.06.2017 md;W jPh;gG
;
toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mj;jPh;g;gpy; Fw;wthspfis F.tp.K.r.
248(1)-d;gb gb re;Njfj;jpd; gyd;fis vjphpfSf;F
ey;fp vjphpfs; Fw;wthspfs; ,y;iy vd jPh;khdpj;J
vjphpfs; tpLjiy nra;ag;gl;L jPh;gG ; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
tpz;zg;gjhuhy; tpz;zg;g gbtj;jpy; thpir vz;.26
kw;Wk; 26(a)-y; Fw;w tof;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l tpguq;fs;
midj;Jk; mtuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
NkYk; kDjhuuhy; G+h;j;jp nra;ag;gl;l rhpghh;g;G
gbtj;jpy; thpir vz;.15 kw;Wk; 16-y; kDjhuh; Fw;w
tof;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l tpguq;fs; kw;Wk; cz;ikfs;
ahTk; tpz;zg;gjhuuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk;
muR Miz vz;.101> (fhty;.9) Jiw. Ehs; 30.01.2003
kw;Wk; jkpo;ehL rpwg;G fhty; rhh;epiy gzpj; njhFjp
tpjp vz;.14(b)(ii) & (iv)-d; gb ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyh;
gzp epakdj;jpw;F xUth; vt;tpj Fw;w tof;fpYk;
rk;ke;jg;glhjtuhfTk;> mtuJ Ke;ija elj;ij36/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018kw;Wk; Fzeyd; jpUg;jpfukhfTk; ,Uf;f Ntz;Lk;.
NkYk; jkpo;ehL rpwg;Gf; fhty; rhh;epiy gzpj; njhFjp
tpjp vz;.14(b)(iv)-d; fPohd tpsf;fk; 1d;gb Fw;wk;
rhl;lg;gl;lth; re;Njfj;jpd; gyid rhjfkhf ngw;Nwh
my;yJ Gfhh;jhuh; gpwo;rhl;rpahf khwpajhNyh
tpLtpf;fg;gl;lhy;> Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; Fw;w tof;fpy;
rk;ke;jg;gl;ltuhfNt fUj Ntz;Lk; vdf;
Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ.
vdNt> kDjhuh; jpU.S.mNrhf; vd;gtUila
Fzeyd;fs; kw;Wk; Ke;ija elj;ijfs; jpUg;jpfukhf
,y;iy vd;w fUj;jpd; mbg;gilapYk; kw;Wk;
khz;GkpF cr;rePjpkd;w Mizfisf; fUj;jpy;
nfhz;Lk;> ghh;itfspy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s
Mizfspd;gbAk;> mtuJ ed;dlj;ij Fwpj;j
mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapYk; tpz;zg;gjhuuhd
jpU.S.mNrhf; j/ng.Nrfh; vd;gtUf;F fhty;Jiwapy;
gzpepakdk; toq;f ,ayhJ vd;gJ ,jd; %yk;
njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
34. When the writ petition was taken up on 12.10.2018, notice
was accepted by the learned Special Government Pleader. Pursuant to the
notice issued by this Court, the Superintendent of Police filed a counter
affidavit dated 23.04.2019. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter
affidavit, it was stated as follows:
“3. …In connection with the verification of
character and antecedents, he was summoned to the
District Police Office, Sivagangai on 14.09.2017 and he
was given a Verification roll form containing 22 columns
to be filled up and return by him.
In reply to the questions in column Nos.15 and 16
of the Verification roll form, he had not mentioned that
he was involved and acquitted in Crime No.98/2014, u/s
387 506(i) IPC of Thiruppachethi Police Station,37/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018Sivagangal District and on verification of OMR
application submitted by the petitioner, In reply to the
questions In column No.26 and 26(a) of the OMR
Application form, he had not mentioned about the
criminal case against him. The same had been sent to ne
concerned jurisdiction Police station to n6, hie character
and antecedents. The Concerned Station House Officer
and the Insoector of Police, Special Branch, Sivagangai
District had reported that he had been involved in Crime
No.98/2014 u/s 387, 506(i) IPC of Thiruppachethi Police
Station, Sivagangai District on 27.04.2014. n this case,
S.Ashok/ the petitioner is Accused No. 3. The final report
in this case was filed and taken on file in C.C.No.
433/2014 in the Additional District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Manamadurai and the case was ended
in acquittal on 06.06.2017 on the grounds of benefit of
doubt in the Additional District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Manamadurai vide C.C.No.433/2014
u/s 248(1) Cr.Pc. It is respectfully submitted that as per
rule 14(b) (i) and (iv) of Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Services, that no person shall be eligible for
appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he
satisfies the appointing authority “that his character and
antecedents are such as to be qualify him for such service
and that he has not involved in any criminal case before
police verification”. It is respectfully further submitted
that as per explanation (1) to rule 14 of the said service,
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.
4. It is submitted that the constitutional validity of
the above rules had been upheld by the full bench of the
Hon’ble High Court, Madras in W.P.No.38289/2005,
dated 28.02.2008 filed by Manikandan and others Vs The
Chairman, TNUSRB. The Special Leave Petition
preferred against the above orders had been dismissed by
the Honorable Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.
4679- 4681/2009, dated:- 23.03.2012. Therefore, as per38/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018rules, S.Ashok / the petitioner was treated as a person
involved in a criminal case.
It is further respectfully submitted that, on
verification of OMR application submitted by the
petitioner, in reply to the questions In column No.26 and
26(a) of the OMR Application form, he had not
mentioned about the criminal case against him. It is also
amount suppression of fact. Hence, he is not eligible for
appointment to the service. Accordingly, he was served
with an endorsement dated 25.10.2017 In
C.No.A3/9545/2017 of the respondent herein informing
that he is not appointed as Grade.II Police constable for
having involved in criminal case as Accused No.3 in
Crime No.98/2014, u/s 387, 506(ii) IPC of
Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District and
the case was ended in acquittal on the arounds of benefit
of doubt and he also suppressed the fact who involved in
Thiruppachethi P.S Cr.No.98/2014 u/s 387, 506(ii) IPC.”
35. This case also squarely falls within the dictum laid down by
the Full Bench in Manikandan’s case (cited supra), as affirmed by the
Larger Bench in Alex Ponseelan’s case (cited supra). Hence, no case has
been made out, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
36. In view of the foregoing, all three writ petitions—W.P.(MD)
No. 16737 of 2018, W.P.(MD) No. 14891 of 2018, and W.P.(MD) No.
21518 of 2018—stand dismissed. All connected W.M.Ps. are closed.
39/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
37. While no order as to costs is made in W.P.(MD) No. 14891 of
2018 (S. Senthurpandi) and W.P.(MD) No. 21518 of 2018 (S. Ashok), in
W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018 (A. Simon William Rajadurai), costs of
Rs. 5,000/- are imposed, payable to the Tamil Nadu Police Benevolent
Fund within four weeks. This order of costs is made solely on account of
the petitioner’s failure to disclose several other cases filed by him
relating to his service matter, which were necessary for the Court to
arrive at a proper decision.
29.08.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
Copy to:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep,, by it’s Principal Secretary,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai – 600 004.
40/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board, No.4, 9th Cross Street,
Indira Nagar,
Chennai – 600 020.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.
6.The Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District.
7.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Rep. by its Vice Chairman,
Having Office at
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
8.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
41/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgments made in
W.P. (MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
29.08.2025
42/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
[ad_1]
Source link