WP/34560/2023 of S.KIRUBABURESHWARAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 27 August 2026

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to declare Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Services (in short "Rules for Jail Subordinate Services") as unconstitutional.

2. Impugned Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services reads as under: “Explanation (1) - A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.”

3. Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services states that a person has not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification. Thus, criteria fixed for selection to Jail Subordinate Services is that candidate has not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification.

4. The word 'involved' has been explained under Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f). Under the provision, a person, who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.

5. Similar Rule has been contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978 ('Rules, 1978'). Rules 14(b) Explanation (1) and (2) of Rules, 1978 is parametria to Explanation Clause impugned in the present writ petition. Explanation (1) states that a person, who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.

6. In respect of Rules, 1978, a Larger Bench of this Court has decided the issue in the case of J.Alex Ponseelan vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu1, wherein, in Paragraph No.19, it has been held as follows: “19. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the explanation to Rule 14(b)(iv) indicates that it is not exhaustive but it specifies certain instances, which would explain the term "involvement in a criminal case".In any event, assuming without admitting that there is some confusion in the understanding of the language by which the Explanation has been stated, that issue can however be appropriately addressed by the Government by suitably amending the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, on the lines of the Delhi Police Rules and its Standing Order No.398/2010, which is reproduced in Paragraph 20 of 12014 (2) CTC 337

the judgment in Mehar Singh's case (Supra). Such a recommendation is made taking cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another - AIR 1996 SC 330.”

7. Even as per Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of the word ‘involve’ denotes participation of a person in an activity or situation. Therefore, registration of an FIR would be sufficient to hold that the person has been involved in a criminal case. Whether he was discharged, acquitted on benefit of doubt or otherwise are the consideration left open to the competent authority, while scrutinising the suitability of candidate for appointment to public posts. Since the Explanation clause mentioned supra has already been upheld by the Larger Bench of this Court in Alex’s case, no further deliberation needs to be undertaken in respect of ground raised in the Writ Petition. Consequently, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 27-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR

To:

1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home (Prison II Dept.), St.George Fort, Chennai.

2. The Director General of Police Prison & Reform Services, Office of the DGP, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner Office, Pantheen Road, Egmore, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Villupuram District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J. AR

27-08-2026