LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-200

M ARUMUGAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Decided On November 15, 2011
M. ARUMUGAM Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent made an advertisement for recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables in Tamil Nadu Police during the year 2001-2002. THE petitioner applied for the same. He participated in the physical efficiency test and was successful. THEreafter, he was called to appear for written test and he was also successful. THEn, he participated in the interview. THEreafter, the petitioner was communicated by a letter dated 20.8.2003 that he was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and he was directed to appear with all documents on 22.8.2003 at District Police Office, Villupuram for Medical examination. He appeared for Medical examination and there it was declared that the petitioner was medically fit to hold the post. He also made a declaration that he was not involved in any criminal case and he was not convicted for any offence in criminal case. However, he was not given appointment.

(2.) WHEN he sent a representation dated 12.12.2003 seeking reason as to why he was not appointed as Grade-II Police Constable though he was provisionally selected, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 stating that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No.499 of 2004 (W.P.No.32062 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 21.1.2004.

(3.) THE petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. On the basis of verification of the antecedents, which was found not satisfactory, the petitioner was not given appointment order. THE petitioner wanted to know the reason for not appointing him, pursuant to the provisional selection. THE first respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 stating that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner were not satisfactory. THE reason stated in the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 for not selecting the petitioner reads as follows: ",tuJ elj;ij kw;Wk; jdp egh; xGf;fk; Mfpait jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy"