STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs. K. VILVALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants aggrieved over the order of the learned single Judge, by which, the impugned order cancelling the admission order on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and he has not mentioned about the same by suppressing it, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the offence said to have been involved was too trivial and he was acquitted by the competent Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, namely, the second appellant conducted selection for the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2007-08. The respondent/writ petitioner was provisionally selected. He also went through the medical examination, having found fit enough to get the appointment. However, during police verification, it was found that the respondent was involved in Crime No. 51/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 149, 279 and 294(b) IPC, 71(A) MCP Act 4/2, 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, a charge sheet was filed on 30.11.2005, in which, the respondent was arrayed as Accused No.38. He attended the Court on 22.04.2009. He was acquitted honourably in Crl.R.C.No.337/2011 dated 08.06.2011. Thus, placing reliance upon the Rules 14(b) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service, as amended in G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 30.01.2003, he cannot be selected.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that the fact that the respondent was involved in a criminal case is not in dispute. The appointment was not made in tune with Rule 14(b) of the said Rules, which has been upheld by this Court. A mere acquittal per se would not be the factor facilitating the respondent to get the appointment. He has also not informed the appellants about the pendency of the acquittal.