WA/1455/2024 of S.MURUGAN Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE on 22 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the common writ order dated 14.03.2024, passed in WP Nos.23300 & 23499 of 2023.

2. Writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The appellants had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Grade - II Police Constable for the year 2017 in pursuance to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. The appellants were successful in the written examination. They appeared for physical test and medical fitness. They were provisionally selected. During the course of certificate verification and conduct verification, the authorities have found that the appellants were involved in a criminal case in Crime No.184 of 2014 registered for the offences under

Sections 294 (b), 452, 323, 506 (i) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. Appellants were acquitted in the criminal case in C.C.No.24 of 2016, by an order dated 24.05.2016, on the ground that the de facto complainant turned hostile. Thus, the selection committee rejected the candidature of the appellants. The appellants initially filed WP Nos.28487 & 28488 of 2017, challenging the rejection order dated 09.10.2017 and the said writ petitions had been withdrawn on 29.06.2018. After withdrawal of the writ petitions, the appellants had approached the Court by filing miscellaneous petitions seeking liberty to challenge the same order of rejection, dated 09.10.2017 and in pursuance to the liberty, fresh writ petitions had been instituted. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the recruitment was for the year 2017 and after a lapse of seven years, their candidature cannot be considered for selection to the post of Grade - II Police Constable. Thus, the present Intra Court appeals have been instituted.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the acquittal granted on benefit of doubt was subsequently converted as honourable acquittal in the year 2019 after completion of selection. Moreover, the offences registered against the appellants cannot be construed as serious in nature. The appellants have not suppressed the fact regarding their involvement in the criminal case in the application. They have been provisionally selected and during certificate verification, the authorities rejected their candidature on the ground that the appellants have involved in criminal case. Therefore, the case of the appellants is to be considered for selection. The learned Senior Counsel would rely on the following three judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court,

(i) C.Vijayaraja Vs.The Director General of Police and other in WP (MD) Nos.1, 1, 2, 1145 and 5190 of 2010 and 1 and 1525 of 2011 and 1, 2, 3, 10539 and 16858 of 2012, dated 26.03.2013.

(ii) Sivan Sakthi Vs. The Superintendent of Police in WP (MD) No.15688 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022.

(iii) P.Mohan Vs. The Director General of Police and two others1. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors2, wherein, the delay was held as not fatal for selection and therefore, the said principles are to be applied in the present case.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Sub Ordinate Service are crystal clear. Rule 13 (e) of the Rules contemplates “that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification”. Explanation (1) denotes that “a person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case”. 1(2013 SCC Online Mad 1365) 2(2024 INSC 131)

5. In the present case, though the appellants claim that they are subsequently honourably acquitted, their cases were considered by the selection committee at the time of conduct of selection in the year 2017 and therefore, any subsequent clarification would not be of any avail to the appellants. The cases of the appellants were considered and their candidature were rejected mainly on the ground that they have been acquitted from the criminal case since the de facto complainant turned hostile and further considering the eligibility and suitability in the context of Rule 13 (e) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Sub Ordinate Service.

6. Let us now consider the Rule position. Rule 13 stipulates qualifications. Sub clause (e) states “that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification”. Thus, the criteria fixed under the Rule is that a candidate has not involved in any criminal case before police verification. The word “involved” means that a person who is acquitted or discharged from a criminal case on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person “involved in criminal case”. In the context of the Rule position, the facts involved are to be considered by this Court. The appellants succeeded in the written examination and during the certificate verification, selection committee found that they had involved in a criminal case before certificate verification and the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal on benefit of doubt, due to the fact that the de facto complainant turned hostile. Even the subsequent order in Crl.OP.No.70 of

2019, dated 03.01.2019, passed after completion of selection process by the High Court shows that the Trial Court, on examination of evidences, had given a categorical finding that the prosecution has not made a case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. Having said so, the High Court acquitted by saying that the acquittal is to be held as an honourable acquittal.

7. In the context of the factual background, the legal position regarding the selection to the post of Uniformed Forces are to be considered. The broad governing principles for selection to Uniformed Services are well settled and they are,

i) suppression of material facts in the application is a ground for rejection of candidature by Selection Authorities;

ii) assessment of suitability and eligibility for selection is the power vest with the Selection Committee;

iii) High Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not expected to substitute its views than that of the view taken by the Selection Committee, unless such decision is illegal, mala fide or arbitrary; and

iv) decision of Selection Committee would be final in all respects regarding suitability and eligibility.

8. In the present case, the order of rejection passed by the selection authority would show that the appellants had involved in a criminal case before certificate verification and therefore, they have to be construed as persons “involved in criminal case”. That apart, the authorities made a finding that their antecedents and conduct are not satisfactory for selection and appointment to the post of Grade - II Police Constable in Uniformed Services. Thus, it is clear that the selection authority has taken into consideration, the involvement of the appellants in the criminal case as well as not satisfied with the antecedents and conduct of the appellants in general.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar stated supra. The factual scenario in the said case before the Apex Court are clearly distinguishable. In the case before the Apex Court, on the date of application, there was no criminal case pending against the candidate. The learned Additional Government Pleader, based on the verification report, after noticing the criminal case, found that his character was good and no complaints were found against him and his general reputation was good. Pertinently, the SHO certified the character of the candidate in the said case as excellent and that he was eligible to do Government service under the State Government. He annexed the report of the police station as well as the report of the Gram Pradhan and the Court documents. The Superintendent of Police in his letter to the Commandant endorsed the report and reiterated that the character of the candidate was excellent.

10. In view of the above certification done by the SHO, Superintendent of Police and through the Court records that the character and conduct of Mr.Ravindra Kumar in the said case was excellent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of the individual as a special case. In paragraph No.30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that on the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out in paragraph No.29, the case of the individual was considered. Pertinently, in paragraph No.30, the Apex Court made a finding as follows: 30……….In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.

11. Therefore, the case of Ravindra Kumar decided by the Apex Court need not be applied uniformly in all the cases, where the selection of a candidate was rejected on the ground of suitability and eligibility based on character and antecedents. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and thus, uniform application would result in causing prejudice to the interest of maintaining discipline in Uniformed Services. Therefore, the case of Ravindra

Kumar relied on by the appellants is of no avail to secure the relief from the hands of this Court.

12. Per contra, it would be relevant to rely on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the issue relating to selection, character, antecedents and conduct, more specifically, to the Uniformed Services.

(a) In the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home and others 3 , the Apex Court held as follows: “29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character /antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service. 29.6. The person who suppressed the material information and / or gives a false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.

29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted”; 32012 (8)SCC 748

b) In the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Rajkumar4, Apex Court held that “the fact appreciation by the High Court, and the intensive scrutiny of the evidence, in the opinion of this court to conclude that Deepa could not have been implicated in the offence, based on inferences drawn under Article 226 of the Constitution, is an exercise of overreach of judicial review process. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment”;

c) In the case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya and another5, Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the involvement of candidate in criminal case, who appeared for selection to the post of Judicial Officer. In the said case, facts regarding suppression of facts was not raised, but Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of Hon’ble acquittal, the alleged involvement of an Officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system. The Court in judicial review is not concerned with the decision per se and that the decision-making process is not flawed. Circumstances, where the Court would interfere with the merits of the decision, are far too well settled to require any reiteration; 42021 INSC 423 52021 INSC 485

d) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Rajkumar Yadav6, Apex Court held as follows: “7. The necessary conclusion from the parameters and principles summarised above, is that whether it is a question of recruiting a person into the service or continuing him in service or extending an employee some service benefit, his criminal antecedents, involvement in criminal activity, the conduct amounting to moral turpitude, registration of a criminal case as well as nature of his acquittal in a criminal case are all germane considerations to be applied. The employer who would be acting through a screening committee to sift such cases, has fairly a large realm of freedom to act, though without becoming arbitrary.

7.1. The area of discretion vested with the screening committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment. In a given case where the facts are stark, mere involvement of a person in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such candidate to be offered employment. Antecedents of a candidate play an important role in the decision-making process by the screening committee. This dictum would operate with greater rigour when it comes to the recruitment and appointment to the disciplined force like police.

7.2. The position of law was highlighted again in the following observations by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan, ‘…it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force.’ *****

8. In Mehar Singh (supra) and in Parvez Khan (supra), this 62026 INSC 225

court opined that the decision of the screening committee must be taken as final unless as it is shown to be mala fide. The screening committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost care for the candidate’s character.

9. But for the above limited considerations namely arbitrariness, unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope of judicial review on this score is extremely limited. The courts are not expected to override the wisdom of the employer in judging the suitability of a candidate and in considering the relevance of the antecedents of the candidate and would not substitute its own view.

13. Legal position ruled in the above judgments in unequivocal terms reiterate that assessment of suitability and eligibility vest with the domain expert, i.e., Selection Committee. Scope of judicial interference in this area is undoubtedly limited and any such intervention may result in unsettling the selection. Substituting the opinion of Selection Committee by High Court is unwarranted.

14. The High Court in exercise of the powers of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to substitute the views of the selection committee in the matter of selection to Uniformed Services. The objective and subjective satisfaction of the selection committee will become final and only in the event of patent illegality or malafide, the High Court will be in a position to interfere with the decisions taken by the selection committee. Re-appreciation of the findings made relating to antecedents and conduct of the candidates in Uniformed Services are not desirable since it is a domain expert i.e., selection committee and its decision will become final.

15. In the present case, the involvement of the appellants in the criminal case is not disputed. At the time of certificate verification, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal on benefit of doubt since the de facto complainant turned hostile. That apart, the selection committee found that the antecedents and the conduct of the appellants are not satisfactory. This being the reasons recorded for rejecting the candidature of the appellants for selection to the post of Grade - II Police Constable, there is no ground available for this Court to interfere with such decision taken, which is otherwise in consonance with the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Sub Ordinate Services and the legal position settled regarding selection.

16. For all these reasons, the common writ order impugned cannot be termed as perverse. Consequently, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. SLI To

1. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Santhome high road, Mylapore, Chennai.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Panthiam road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3. The Superintendent of Police District Police Officer, Cuddalore. WA Nos. 1455 & 1457 of 2024 22-09-2026