(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.A2(3)/49777/2012 dated 03.01.2013 and Na.Na.No.A2(3)261/25505/2019 dated 16.07.2019 dismissing the candidature of the petitioner and quash the same and further directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Gr.II-PC, Jail Warden, Firemen in the Common Recruitment 2012 and pass orders.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, he had applied to the post of Grade – II Police Constable, Jail Warden and Fireman, pursuant to the common Recruitment – 2012 notification issued by the first respondent, as having required educational qualification of S.S.L.C pass; that on submitting the application form, he was allotted Enrolment No.0609657; and that he had appeared in the written examination and successfully cleared the same.

3. The Petitioner further contended that on successfully clearing the written examination, he was called for Physical Measurement Test (PMT) which was held on 28.08.2012, which was also cleared by him.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was awaiting to receive a letter of appointment, he was served with the order/proceedings dated 03.01.2013 of the second respondent, rejecting his candidature to the above recruitment, citing a false criminal case in PRC.No.14 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court – I, Vellore, which was subsequently committed to the Sessions Judge in S.C.No.92 of 2012, wherein, the Court had recorded the honourary acquittal.

5. Petitioner further contended that the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2013, without going into the merits of the PRC, which was later committed to the Sessions Judge; and that if only the second respondent had considered the merits of the case, falsity of the case registered against the petitioner, would have been noticed.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on securing honourary acquittal from the Sessions Court on 10.03.2014, he had approached the second respondent authority and submitted a representation dated 08.07.2019, to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Grade- II Police Constable under the common recruitment notification - 2012; and that the second respondent, without noticing the honourary acquittal secured by him in PRC/SC, once again, by the order dated 16.07.2019, rejected his candidature, citing the same reason as specified in the proceeding/order dated 03.01.2013, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

7. Though the respondents did not file any counter affidavit, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that since, the petitioner had applied to the post of Grade – II Police Constable which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and G.O.No.101, Home (Police-9) Department dated 30.01.2003 and Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Order No.14 (b), which prescribes that for appointments as second class Constable, a person should not have any previous criminal record and should have good character; and that the case vide Cr.No.403 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner on 25.08.2011 under Sections 366-A, 376, 120 (B) of IPC on the file of Vellore Rural Police Station, wherein, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused-1, the petitioner was declared as ineligible for being appointed to the post of Grade-II Police Constable.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the respondents, after causing verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, had declared him as ineligible for the aforesaid appointment, more particularly, the appointment being into Uniformed Service, involvement in any crime, if proved at a later point, would bring disrepute to the entire Force.

9. It is further contended by the respondents that on the second respondent issuing the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2013, the petitioner remained silent, while the respondents completed the recruitment process; and that the petitioner secured honourary acquittal in the criminal case only on 10.03.2014, by which time, the entire selection process was completed; and that the acquittal secured by the petitioner is not an honourary acquittal, but, is on account of witnesses turning hostile.

10. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner after securing acquittal in the crime, which has been registered against him and tried as a Sessions Case, submitted a representation once again on 08.07.2019 i.e., after a lapse of five years, after the Sessions Court recording acquittal and sought for consideration of his candidature for recruitment under common recruitment notification of the year 2012; and that the second respondent by considering the passage of time and also the fact of the petitioner being involved in a crime at the relevant point of time, issued proceedings dated 16.07.2019, reiterating the position as stated in the proceedings dated 03.01.2019.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions as urged.

12. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner had applied to the post of Grade-II Police Constable which is an uniformed service of the State, and requires the candidate entering into the service should not have any criminal antecedents and should have good character. The petitioner, however being involved in a crime registered under various provisions of IPC including Section 376, which is a heinous crime, not only failed to disclose the same at the time of submitting application and also at the time of selection process of he facing trial in the said crime. Though the petitioner contended that the aforesaid case has been falsely registered, the fact that the petitioner being arrayed as A-1 therein and the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court is on account of the witnesses turning hostile, the petitioner cannot claim that he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime.

13. Further, as per G.O.101 and Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Rules, providing for the candidate applied to the aforesaid post, not being involved in any criminal case before Police verification and the fact that the criminal case having been registered against the petitioner, on the date of issuance of notification and the petitioner facing the trial in the said case, when the respondents undertook the recruitment, the disqualification prescribed stands altered and thus, the petitioner became ineligible for selection.

14. Further, the fact that the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of a criminal case, at the time of submitting his application, in response to notification issued and the fact of pendency of criminal case having come to light, only during verification by the respondents, the petitioner did not make complete disclosure by verifying the details furnished in the application. Thus, the petitioner having suppressed the fact of the pending criminal case against him, cannot be allowed to claim that his candidature should be considered for recruitment under the aforesaid notification.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore Vs. J.Raghunees reported in [(2023) 16 SCC 647], while dealing with the eligibility criteria and suppression of relevant information with regard to conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of criminal case, in relation to appointment in the Police Department has observed as under:-

                     “14. In other words, the candidate in the first instance is obliged to give correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of the criminal case and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. Secondly, even if truthful declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right and that the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents.

                     15. In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible for appointment but since he has not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information as required by Column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment.”

16. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court applies in all force to the present case and the petitioner is not entitled for being granted any relief. Further, the fact of the petitioner being served with a letter rejecting his candidature on 03.01.2013 and the petitioner having accepted the same, by submitting a representation on 08.07.2019 i.e., after 6 years of the issuance of the said proceedings and 5 years after securing acquittal in the criminal case, cannot seek to revive a stale claim or approach this Court, on the respondents replying to the same as giving rise to cause of action.

17. Thus, considered from any angle, this Court is of the view that the present Writ petition as filed is devoid of merits.

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.