P. BASKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, the petitioner had applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable. The petitioner successfully completed all the tests conducted by the respondent Board including written examination, physical test, etc., and qualified for the said post. Under these circumstances, the impugned order, dated 26.10.2017 has been passed by the third respondent stating that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment to the said post since he has not disclosed the criminal case pending against him in Cr.No.303 of 2013 under Section 147 , 148 , 294 (b), 323, 324, 435 and 506(ii) of I.P.C . R/w Sec. 3(1) (x), 3(2) (iii) SC/ ST Act , 1989 on the file of Arcot Taluk Police Station, Vellore in the application submitted to the said post. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

(2.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, petitioner's name does not find place in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., the defacto complainant has not whispered anything about the role of the petitioner. Based on the statement made under Sec.161 Cr.P.C ., the petitioner's name was included in the F.I.R. Without proper investigation, the petitioner's name was arrayed as one of the accused in the criminal case. Writ petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.No.23022 of 2017 before this Court. Further, the defacto complainant has no objection for quashing the complaint against the petitioner and to that effect, a joint memo of compromise was filed before this Court. By order, dated 30.10.2017, Crl.O.P.No.23022 of 2017 was allowed by this Court. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case based on the statement made under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Division Bench of this in an identical issue in W.A.Nos.626, 627, 816 to 825 and 159 of 2014, dated 24.7.2017 considered the scope of rejection of appointment to the post of Police Constable and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and directed the Director General of Police, to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case (supra). Therefore, the impugned order, dated 26.10.2017 is liable to be quashed.