(Prayer: To set aside the order dated 31.07.2023 made in W.P.No.27526 of 2022.)

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. Under assail is the common Writ Order dated 31.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.27526 of 2022.

2. In pursuance of Recruitment Notification of the year 2019 for selection and appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Service, 1st respondent / Writ Petitioner submitted an application to participate in the process of selection. He was successful in the written examination. He was called upon to appear for physical eligibility test, endurance test, etc. On completion of tests, during certificate verification process, Authorities found that 1st respondent had suppressed the fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case in Crime No.232 of 2015 registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 326 and 506(ii) IPC. 1st respondent was arrayed as A2 in the said criminal case. He was acquitted by Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2018.

3. In the application form, there was a column regarding information to be provided about involvement in criminal case. 1st respondent mentioned "No". Since Authorities found that 1st respondent had involved in a criminal case, and subsequently, acquitted in the year 2018, his candidature was rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts.

4. In this regard, order of rejection came to be issued by Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District vide proceedings dated 23.03.2020. Challenging the said order, 1st respondent had filed W.P.No.13812 of 2020. Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 27.04.2022, directing Superintendent of Police to consider the request made by 1st respondent afresh in the light of the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.15726 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021 and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of twelve weeks. In compliance of the order of Writ Court, another rejection order dated 30.08.2022 was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.

5. Appellant mainly rejected the candidature of the 1st respondent on the ground that he had suppressed the fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case in the application form. Rule 14(2) Sub- Rule (b) (iv) and explanation (1) & (2) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services states, “that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service". Relying on this ground, candidature of 1st respondent was rejected. Challenging 2nd rejection order, another Writ Petition in W.P.No.27526 of 2022 was filed by 1st respondent. The said Writ Petition was allowed by learned Single Judge, which resulted in filing an appeal by State of Tamil Nadu along with Superintendent of Police.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for appellants would mainly contend that suppression of fact is a ground to reject candidature and further, 1st respondent involved in a criminal case. Thus, Authorities, after verifying his character and antecedents, disqualified him on the ground of suitability. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Department. Writ Court had gone into the merits involved in the criminal case and by appreciating evidence and other aspects, allowed Writ Petition.

7. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would oppose, by stating that learned Single Judge, while passing final orders in W.P.No.13812 of 2020 clearly stated that case of 1st respondent has to be re-considered with reference to judgment of Trial Court. Therefore, Authorities ought to have considered the name of 1st respondent for selection and appointment, but they have rejected the same. Learned Single Judge in the order impugned elaborately considered the involvement of 1st respondent in the criminal case and allowed Writ Petition. Criminal case ended with the order of acquittal even before submission of application and therefore, it cannot be taken as a suppression of fact.

8. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between parties to the lis.

9. Governing legal principles in the matter of selection, especially to Uniformed Services are well-settled, viz.,

                   i) suppression of material facts in the application is a ground for rejection of candidature by Selection Authorities;

                   ii) assessment of suitability and eligibility for selection is the power vest with the Selection Committee;

                   iii) High Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not expected to substitute its views than that of the view taken by the Selection Committee, unless such decision is illegal, mala fide or arbitrary; and

                   iv) decision of Selection Committee would be final in all respects regarding suitability and eligibility.

10. On analysis of facts of the case on hand, it is not in dispute that 1st respondent had not furnished particulars regarding his involvement in the criminal case nor produced the order of acquittal passed by competent Criminal Court before the Selection Committee.

11. In the rejection order passed by competent Authority, reasons have been recorded in respect of non-consideration of suitability and eligibility of 1st respondent for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, which read as under:

                   “5) Therefore the candidate is not found eligible for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable in the year 2019 for the following reasons and also as per Special Rules, and other Court Orders.

                   i) The candidate was involved in a grave criminal case in Mailam Police Station Cr.No.293/2018 u/s 294(b), 323 324, 506(ii) IPC. In the instant case the nature of the offence on the part of the candidate was a grave one.

                   ii) In this case he was A2, the accused filed compromise application and it has been observed that PW1 to PW 6 turned hostile hence accused acquittal on benefit of doubt by the JM No-II Court, Tindivanam on 13.12.2018 in CC.No. 100/2018. Therefore, character and antecedents before the recruitment was not satisfactory.

                   iii) As per Rule 14(2) in sub-rule (b)(iv) and Explanation (1) & (2) of the Special as for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978 and as per Ms No. 101, Home (Pol.IX) Department, dated 30.1 2003 and fact that the above was upheld by the orders in Writ Petition No.38289 of 2005, dated 28.2.2008 by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras the candidate is not eligible to appointment as Grade II Police Constable. Further, as per the law declared by Supreme No.20525/2011 Court of India in a case Avtar Singh vs Union of India vide SLP (C) dated 21.7.2016 and order passed in C.A. No. 67/2018 to 70/2018 dated 8.1.2018 by the Supreme Court of India the candidate Tr.M. Kumaran is not found eligible for the recruitment of Grada II Police Constables for the year 2019 as his previous character and antecedents were not found satisfactory. Hence, his candidature is not considered for appointment.”

12. In the context of above reasons, it would be relevant to rely on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

                   (a) In the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home and others(2012 (8)SCC 748), the Apex Court held as follows: “29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character /antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service. 29.6. The person who suppressed the material information and / or gives a false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service. 29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted”;

                   b) In the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Rajkumar(2021 INSC 423), Apex Court held that “the fact appreciation by the High Court, and the intensive scrutiny of the evidence, in the opinion of this court to conclude that Deepa could not have been implicated in the offence, based on inferences drawn under Article 226 of the Constitution, is an exercise of overreach of judicial review process. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment”;

                   c) In the case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya and another(2021 INSC 485), Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the involvement of candidate in criminal case, who appeared for selection to the post of Judicial Officer. In the said case, facts regarding suppression of facts was not raised, but Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of Hon’ble acquittal, the alleged involvement of an Officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system. The Court in judicial review is not concerned with the decision per se and that the decision-making process is not flawed. Circumstances, where the Court would interfere with the merits of the decision, are far too well settled to require any reiteration;

                   d) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Rajkumar Yadav(2026 INSC 225), Apex Court held as follows:

                   “7. The necessary conclusion from the parameters and principles summarised above, is that whether it is a question of recruiting a person into the service or continuing him in service or extending an employee some service benefit, his criminal antecedents, involvement in criminal activity, the conduct amounting to moral turpitude, registration of a criminal case as well as nature of his acquittal in a criminal case are all germane considerations to be applied. The employer who would be acting through a screening committee to sift such cases, has fairly a large realm of freedom to act, though without becoming arbitrary.

                   7.1. The area of discretion vested with the screening committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment. In a given case where the facts are stark, mere involvement of a person in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such candidate to be offered employment. Antecedents of a candidate play an important role in the decision-making process by the screening committee. This dictum would operate with greater rigour when it comes to the recruitment and appointment to the disciplined force like police.

                   7.2. The position of law was highlighted again in the following observations by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan, ‘…it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force.’

                   *****

                   8. In Mehar Singh (supra) and in Parvez Khan (supra), this court opined that the decision of the screening committee must be taken as final unless as it is shown to be mala fide. The screening committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost care for the candidate’s character.

                   9. But for the above limited considerations namely arbitrariness, unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope of judicial review on this score is extremely limited. The courts are not expected to override the wisdom of the employer in judging the suitability of a candidate and in considering the relevance of the antecedents of the candidate and would not substitute its own view.

 13. Legal position ruled in the above judgments in unequivocal terms reiterate that assessment of suitability and eligibility vest with the domain expert, i.e., Selection Committee. Scope of judicial interference in this area is undoubtedly limited and any such intervention may result in unsettling the selection. Substituting the opinion of Selection Committee by High Court is unwarranted.

14. In the present case, Writ Court has not considered the spirit of Rule 14(2) Sub-Rule (b) (iv) and explanation (1) & (2) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services. Rule reiterates 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 qualify him for such service and that he has not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification”. Rule in clear terms stipulates that candidate should not have involved in criminal case before Police Verification. Verification of character and antecedent is to subjective satisfaction of appointing authority.

15. In the present case, 1st respondent had suppressed the fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case, which ended with the order of acquittal. Therefore, High Court is not expected to appreciate evidences and findings made in Criminal Court judgment. Pertinently, selection was of the year 2019 and Writ Court, while passing impugned order in the year 2023, directed Authorities to appoint 1st respondent as Grade-II Police Constable based on the provisional selection made pursuant to the Notification of the year 2019. Such a direction issued by Writ Court would fall beyond the realm of the powers of judicial review.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is able to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that Writ Court order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned common order of Writ Court dated 31.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.27526 of 2022 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.