G BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W. P. No.9558 of 2006, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the first respondent Director General of Police wherein and by which he was denied appointment for the post of Police Constable Grade II in the selection made for the year 2003-04. Though the petitioner was selected for the written test, as per the Rules in existence, his antecedents and character were verified and it was found that a case under Sections 323, 324, and 506

(2.) When this writ petition came up for admission, this was taken up along with the first writ petition. In the meanwhile, another petitioner by name V. Veeramani, who was similarly placed, had filed W. P. No.3547 of 2006 challenging the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the first respondent not selecting him to the post of Police Constable Grade II in the Police Department. In view of the defence taken by the respondent Police, he has filed another writ petition being W. P. No.10953 of 2007 challenging the constitutional validity of Explanation 1 to Rule 14 (b) (iv ). This was also heard along with the other writ petitions in view of the common issues raised by both the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. S. Sathiachandran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. C. K. Vishnupriya, learned Government Advocate, taking notice for the respondents and have perused the records.