V VEERAMANI 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 (ii) IPC was registered against the petitioner on 28. 10. 2003 by the Kivalur Police Station in Crime No. 794 of 2003 and the petitioner was shown as third accused. The case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate. I, Nagapattinam and in view of the fact that the witnesses turned hostile and again, the complainant and the injured filed a compromise memo, which was also rejected, the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt under Section 248 (1) Cr. P. C. vide judgment dated 16. 11. 2005. Therefore, he had challenged the order of the first respondent in writ petition No. 9558 of 2006. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 06. 4. 2006. The respondents have entered appearance in the said writ petition and had filed the counter affidavit dated 24. 11. 2006 sworn to by the Inspector General of Police attached to the Office of the Director General of Police and in that, it was stated that an explanation to Rule 14 (b) introduced by way of G. O. Ms. No. 101, Home (Police IX) Department dated 30. 01. 2003 has been added and since the petitioner's case was hit by the Explanation I, the order passed by the first respondent is perfectly in order. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed the second writ petition in W. P. No. 10979 of 2007 challenging the constitutional validity of the Explanation 1 to Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Rules 1978 [for short, 'rules'] as introduced by G. O. Ms. No. 101, Home (Police IX) Department dated 30. 01. 2003.

(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.