WP/34565/2023 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.) Rejection order rejecting candidature of petitioner for selection to the post of Grade-II Constable in proceedings dated 09.08.2023 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. In pursuance of Recruitment Notification issued for selection to the post of Grade-II Constable conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, petitioner submitted application and participated in the process of selection. He was successful in the written examination and physical eligibility test. During certificate verification, Selection Committee found that petitioner involved in a criminal case registered in Crime No.369 of 2021 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC. At the time of application, petitioner was charge-sheeted on 19.06.2019. Subsequently, he was acquitted in C.C.No.21 of 2023 by Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet vide judgment dated 25.05.2023. He was acquitted on the ground that prosecution witnesses turned hostile.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the acquittal of petitioner from criminal case, would reiterate that acquittal cannot be construed as a disqualification for selection. Petitioner is an innocent person not involved in any criminal case. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Contention of petitioner is that a false criminal case has been registered against him and he was acquitted on the ground that witnesses turned hostile. Thus, he is eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Grade-II Constable under the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would oppose, by stating that person involved in a criminal case cannot claim selection as a matter of right and Selection Committee is empowered to assess suitability of a candidate in the context of nature of criminal case as well as involvement of a person concerned. As per Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Services (in short "Rules for Jail Subordinate Services"), involvement in a criminal case per se is a disqualification and therefore, the order impugned is to be sustained. The fact regarding involvement of petitioner in criminal case is not in dispute. Thus, relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions made between parties to the present writ petition.

6. Close reading of Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services would show 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”. Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services states that a person has not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification. Therefore, a person, who is involved in a criminal case at the time of verification is not eligible for selection. The word ‘involved’ has been defined under Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services, which amply makes clear that even if a person is acquitted on the ground that complainant turned hostile, it can be construed as the person involved in criminal case. Therefore, the said ground raised by petitioner is untenable.

7. Scope of interference by Writ Court in the matter of selection is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Rajkumar1, Apex Court considered the issue and held as follows: 12021 INSC 423

“25…..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.

26. 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. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V.Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission7 held as follows: “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion… xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection.”

27. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B.S. Mahajan8 this court held that (2008) 2 SCC 119 (1990) 1 SCC 305 “12.... it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. .. in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selec- tion so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.”

28. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, it was iterated that “The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee.”

29. Public service, like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non- discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.

30. The High Court’s approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender’s conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or

hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.

8. In the case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya and another2, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated 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.

9. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Rajkumar Yadav3, 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 22021 INSC 485 32026 INSC 225

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 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.

10. 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 and not desirable.

11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner is involved in criminal case in the context of Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services. Invoking the said Rule, he was not selected and impugned order came to be passed. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of decision taken by Selection Committee, since principles as contemplated had been followed for arriving at a decision.

Consequently, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 27-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR

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

27-08-2026