LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-76

K SATYANARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On September 17, 2009
K. SATYANARAYANAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant applied for selection and appointment to the post of Grade II police constable pursuant to the notification made in the year 2006. He participated in the selection process, such as physical test, written test and medical test and was successful. While he was waiting for the final order of selection and appointment, he was issued with the order dated 23.5.2008 denying the appointment. That order reads as under:-

(2.) MR. K. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that on the facts of this case, Rule 14(b) of the Rules is not applicable. Though the said rule contemplates that the character and antecedents are relevant for the purpose of selection and explanation (1) to the said rule relates to the acquittal on benefit of doubt and when the complainant turned hostile, it should be treated as disqualification, by virtue of explanation (2) to the said Rule, in the event a complaint is closed as mistake of fact, it should not be treated as a disqualification.

(3.) HAVING regard to the above rule read with explanations, the facts in the case must be considered. There is no dispute that a case was registered against the appellant in Crime No.1256 of 2005 on 24.7.2005 on the file of Dharmapuri police station. After investigation, by a referred charge sheet dated 7.11.2005, the complaint against the appellant was closed as "mistake of fact". A perusal of the order dated 23.5.2008 questioned in the writ petition shows that the appellant was denied the selection and appointment solely on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case. Hence, the case on hand would squarely fall under explanation (2) of Rule 14(b) of the Rules and in such event, the registration of a criminal case against the appellant cannot be considered to be a disqualification for selection to the post of police constable. In view of the same, we find merit in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the findings of the learned single Judge that mistake of fact would amount to disqualification cannot be sustained.