D MAHADEVAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 1.12.2003. He applied for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police when the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board notified the vacancies. The petitioner had come out successfully in the physical efficiency test, written test and viva voce test. He had secured 75% marks and therefore, according to him, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. However, he was involved in Crime No.118 of 1999 and the question in this writ petition is, whether this will affect his appointment.

(2.) THE relevant facts to be noted are as follows:

(3.) ON 10.1.2008 when the matter came up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that a detailed counter would be filed and the respondent was well within his rights to insist upon an applicant's character being satisfactory. Time was granted for filing counter, but the petitioner was permitted to undergo the training for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, but subject to the result of the writ petition. An application to vacate the interim direction was filed in M.P. No.3 of 2008 and the matter was argued by the learned Special Government Pleader. It was submitted that the petitioner's character was considered unsatisfactory according to Rule 13(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. Reliance was placed on 2005 W.L.R. 267 [Saraswathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu], (2003) 10 S.C.C. 681 [K. Vinod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy] and 2004 W.L.R. 885 [] where it was stated that in such cases, the Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities.