K. VENKATESAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai for the year 2017, the petitioner had applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable. The petitioner secured 57 marks in written examination and 15 marks in physical examination making a total of 72 marks and he was declared provisionally selected by the second respondent for the post of TSP-PC as per the results published in the website. Under these circumstances, the third respondent vide his letter, dated 12.10.2017 rejected his selection on the ground of suppression of criminal case pending against him. According to the petitioner, the petitioner honestly disclosed the particulars of pendency of criminal case registered against him in Cr.No.186 of 2013 of Uthankarai Police Station for the alleged offence under Section 147 , 148 and 341 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.3 of Tamil nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, Crime number has been wrongly mentioned as Cr.No.186 of 2013 instead of correct Cr.No.184 of 2013 of Uthankarai Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 12.10.2017.

(2.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the third respondent has not applied his mind independently while considering the application of the petitioner. The petitioner honestly disclosed the pendency of criminal case in the relevant column of the application. The third respondent passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and rejected his candidature for appointment in a mechanical manner. Even though proceedings initiated under Section 110 (a) of Cr.P.C . in Cr.No.174 of 2015 of Uthankarai Police Station is only a preventive measures taken by the Police to maintain peace and tranquility in the area and therefore, it is not a serious criminal offence. On receipt of rejection letter from the third respondent, the petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent stating that he was falsely implicated in Cr.No.184 of 2013 of Uthankarai Police Station. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The third respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that as per Rule 14 (b) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that