SIVANESAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has come forward to challenge an order dated 11.12.2012 issued by the respondent Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to consider his representation, dated 5.12.2012 so as to select him for the post of the Police Constable, Grade-II under the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force. When the writ petition came up on 4.1.2013, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice. On such notice, a counter affidavit, dated 12.2.2013 has been filed by the respondent. The original file relating to the non selection of the petitioner was also produced.

(2.) Heard both sides. The petitioner had applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. He came out successful in his written test, physical efficiency test and medical test etc. It is when his antecedent and character were verified by the police department, it was found that he was involved in Crime No. 730 of 2011 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and a charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arni. But, however, the charge sheet has not yet filed. In terms of Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules relating to the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, if a person is involved in any criminal case, it will be considered that his conduct and character was not satisfactory and therefore, he was not given an appointment order. The petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation, dated 5.12.2012. When no reply was forthcoming, the writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) The petitioner was the diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. Subsequently, he was employed in Vittalnaickenpatti in a private company. During August, 2011, his friend one Sudhakar of Arni got married to one Arachelvi and it was a love marriage. On 17.8.2011, both got married at Melvaruvathur temple. Subsequent to the marriage, as the sister-in-law of the said Arachelvi was the Sub Inspector of Police, a false case was registered in Crime No. 730 of 2011 under Section 366 IPC against the said Sudhakar and three others including the petitioner. They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. But, they had filed a bail application before the Sessions Court at Tiruvannamalai in Crl. M.P. No. 3403 of 2011. During the hearing of the bail application, the said Arachelvi, the girl whom Sudhakar got married, filed an affidavit and also produced the educational certificate to show that her date of birth was 9.6.1988. At the time of marriage, she was 23 years old and there was no compulsion in her marriage and her marriage was voluntary. The learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, by an order dated 6.9.2011 had granted bail to the petitioner by observing that he had the benefit of hearing the girl in Court and her statement was recorded in open Court. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie the offence was not proved. Hence the petitioner was granted bail.