Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.A.No.1669 of 20223. Before the learned single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid criminal case was registered against the appellant when he was aged about 18 years and it was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 05.12.2019 and therefore, there is no embargo to consider him for selection to the said post and suppression of pendency of criminal case in his application would not be fatal to his selection.4. While on behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the appellant submitted his application for the post on 30.03.2019 and on which, date, the above said criminal case was still pending against him, however, the appellant has deliberately suppressed the same and as per Rule 13(b) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, if a criminal case is pending against the candidate at the time of submitting the application, such candidate cannot be considered for selection to the post and in the event of the criminal case ended in acquittal, his candidature can be considered for the next selection. 5. The learned Judge, on consideration of the above submission 3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022including the relevant decisions relied upon by both parties, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that as on the date of submitting the application for the post, a criminal case was pending against the appellant which was not disclosed by him and as per Rule 13(b) and (e), the appellant is not entitled to claim appointment even though he is selected for the same. 6. Questioning the order of the learned single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.7. Mr. B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was a student aged 18 years at the relevant time and he was not aware of the domestic dispute that was initiated by the neighbours against his father, mother, sister and the appellant, however, later the matter was amicably settled and the learned Magistrate, vide judgment dated 5.12.2019, closed the matter and acquitted the appellant. He would contend that the appellant was involved in a case of trivial nature which ended in compromise which even if disclosed would not rendered the appellant unfit for the post and the employer ought to have ignored the 4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022suppression of fact by condoning the lapse by exercising his discretionary. However, the authority, in a routine manner, merely taking note of the suppression of fact and pendency of criminal case, removed the name of the appellant from the provisional select list by way of impugned order, which cannot be sustained, in the light of the several decisions, more particularly, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Avtar Singh versus Union of India and others” reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. He would refer to paragraphs 38.4.1, 38.4.3, 38.6 and 38.8, which are extracted as under:“38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse..........38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.............38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully 5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.............38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.”8. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would contend that the authority who is vested with the discretionary power of assessing the suitability of the candidates in question, ought to have probed into the matter regarding the involvement of the appellant in criminal case and its disposal either conviction/acquittal, in which event, the authority would have certainly come to know that the appellant was involved in a case of trivial nature which ended in acquittal, which may not be a relevant factor to disqualify his selection to the post and as such, while exercising his discretionary power, the authority ought to have condoned the lapse on the part of the appellant for suppression of pendency of the criminal case. However, without resorting to this exercise, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order, which was unfortunately, confirmed by the learned 6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022single Judge. With these contentions, the learned Senior counsel would urge this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge as well as the original impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent.9. On the other hand, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Addl.Advocate General would submit that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case at the relevant time, but deliberately suppressed the information in his application while applying for the post, which is a serious lapse on his part and any person who conceals material information is unfit to be employed in the Police Force where the standard of discipline is higher and is mandatory in all respects. He would also contend that as per Rule 13(b) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, if any candidate involves in a criminal case at the time of submitting the application, such candidate cannot be considered for selection to the post and in the event of the criminal case ended in acquittal, his candidature would be considered for the next selection. He would submit that the 2nd respondent, having considered the fact that the appellant has suppressed the information regarding his involvement in a criminal case, has rightly 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022cancelled his selection by the 3rd respondent vide impugned proceedings, which was rightly confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court and hence, the same does not require any interference.10. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl.Advocate General for the respondents and perused the entire materials on record.11. It is not in dispute that as on the date of submitting the application for the post, i.e. on 30.03.2019, a criminal case in C.C.No.106 of 2018 was pending against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengam and that the appellant has not disclosed the same in his application. But it is to be noted that the case in which the appellant was involved was pertaining to a domestic dispute, which is of trivial nature and ended in compromise and thereby, the appellant was acquitted even prior to publication of the selection list. 12. As regards the issue of cancelling of the selection on the ground 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022of suppression of information or submitting false information regarding pendency of criminal case and effect of conviction/acquittal, there were conflicting views of different High Courts. On making a reference, the said controversy has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Avtar Singh versus Union of India and others” reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, wherein, after analysing the divergent views, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a holistic approach and summarised the following yardsticks in paragraph 38, which are reproduced hereunder:“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 202238.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”13. The above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly paragraphs 38.4.1, 38.4.3, 38.6 and 38.8, would aptly apply to the case on hand, wherein, the appellant was a minor aged 18 years at the time of 12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022registration of the FIR and later, when he crossed 18 years, his name was included and filed the charge sheet and it was pending at the time when the appellant was applying for the subject post. However, it is pertinent to note that the case was relating to a domestic dispute, which is of trivial in nature and it was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 05.12.2019 in C.C.No.106 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengam. Mere involvement in a criminal case, which is of trivial in nature, should not be given colour of criminality to deny the public employment to an aspirant, who became successful in the selection process. Thus, applying the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its entirety, non-disclosure of the criminal case pending against him by the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, would have any material significance for the authority to cancel the selection of the appellant. 14. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined as to how the discretion to be exercised by an employer in the matter of assessing the suitability of a candidate who was involved in a criminal case and suggested even to ignore the suppression of fact or false information by condoning the 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022lapse if the criminal case involved by the candidate at young age, is of trivial in nature. Therefore, when the authority is vested with the discretionary power, before cancelling the selection of a candidate, it is incumbent on his part to enquire into the matter and find out as to whether he/she was involved in a criminal case of trivial nature or petty case and his/her acquittal is honourary one. In the present case, it is to be noted that though at the time of applying for the post, there was a criminal case pending against the appellant, however, the said case which is of trivial in nature not involving moral turpitude, ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 05.12.2019, i.e. even prior to the publication of provisional selection list, which was said to have been published on 04.02.2020. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, if enquired about the background of the criminal case and nature of the offences, etc., he would have certainly come to know that the appellant was involved in a criminal case at young age, which is of trivial nature and he was already acquitted by the trial Court and then, the same would not be a relevant factor or impediment to cancel his selection by condoning the lapse on the part of the appellant in suppressing the information of his involvement in the criminal case. Therefore, when a 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022discretion is vested on the authority to assess the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the uniformed services, exercise of such discretion has to be extremely circumspect and wholesome, particularly, when the nature of the offence alleged against the appellant herein was trivial in nature and no criminality in the strict sense, could be attached to such offence even if the said offence is established before the Criminal Court. Mere registration of FIR against the candidate and pending trial, particularly, the registered criminal case is trivial in nature, even ended in conviction, taking into consideration that the appellant was very young aged about 19 years, cannot operate as an embargo for consideration of his candidature to the appointment. 15. In similar circumstances in a case of “Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar”, (2011) 4 SCC 644, wherein, the candidate, who was young aged, had concealed the fact of his in a criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form, which led to the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable, to which he was provisionally selected. This was challenged before the Delhi High Court, 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022which, on consideration of entire facts, held that the cancellation of his selection, is illegal and the Department had taken the matter to the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on consideration of the entire facts, particularly, the age of the candidate who was aged 20 years when FIR was registered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 8:“8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.“11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.“12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."(emphasis added)16. Following the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court in “Vikas Kumar versus State of Rajasthan” 2025 SCCOnLine Raj396, has held in para 15 as under:“15. Youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people, particularly in their late teens and early twenties, are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. At this stage, they often act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well thought out. A punitive approach that permanently brands 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society. (emphasis added)17. In the present case as already stated above, the appellant at the age of 19 years, was involved in a criminal case which pertains to a domestic dispute that was initiated by the neighbours against him and his family members, which later ended in compromise and the appellant was acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, the indiscretions committed by the appellant ought to have been condoned rather than to brand him as criminal for the rest of his life. Generally, a candidate who was involved in a criminal case, while filling up the application, may not be in a position to give correct particulars due to fear or hesitation that his application itself would be summarily rejected at the threshold even though he was acquitted honourably or involved in a petty case. Therefore, mere suppression of the information alone is not the criteria to cancel the selection of the candidate who, after all, by his hard work and well preparation, cleared all the stages of selection process and is selected provisionally. It is for the authority who 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022is vested with the discretionary power to take into consideration of the candidates' involvement in the criminal case, nature of the offences, the manner in which he or she was acquitted and whether the non disclosure of the involvement was material, intentional or deliberate. There are several aspects like these to be considered before resorting to the cancellation of the selection of the candidate. But, unfortunately, the authorities have been adopting a mechanical approach in rejecting the candidatures merely on the basis of the involvement of the candidates in the criminal cases, which shows that the authorities even might not be aware of the categorical pronouncements rendered by this Court and the Hon'be Supreme Court, particularly, the renowned judgment in 'Avtar Singh's case on the subject issue of 'suppression of information'. 18. It is worthwhile to refer an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17530 of 2019 dated 02.06.2020. The relevant portion as found in paragraphs 21 to 23, is extracted as under:“21.No doubt, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Avtar Singh case, which is holding the field, the power and discretion is vested in the authority concerned to assess 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022the suitability of the candidate in cases where the candidates were involved in criminal cases and were acquitted, nevertheless, the discretion so exercised is not beyond the judicial review of this Court. After all, any decision of the authority is always subjected to judicial review if the same is put to challenge on legitimate grounds. There may be situation that the authority may feel that his decision is right and not to be faulted with, but such decision may also be subjected to interference, when dispassionate consideration is the underlying principle adopted by the Courts by judging the merits and demerits of the respective claims, sans officious predilection. 22. In substance, this Court finds that the discretion, which is delegated to the employer, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, has been exercised more dutifully and less objectively and in such view of the matter, this Court finds it imperative to intervene in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 23.Further, factually this Court finds that the petitioner is only 28 years old, as per his indication in the affidavit and he must have been in his teen at the time when the alleged criminal offence took place in 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 20222009. Even assuming that the petitioner was involved in a scuffle, which led to the framing of criminal charges against him, a solitary act of aberration in the conduct of the petitioner, at the time of his impressionable age with susceptible mind, cannot result in dubbing the person of criminality for all times to come. Although this Court is conscious of the fact that the recruitment is to the disciplined Police Force, yet, even if the standards of discipline are of higher degree, an incident happened during the immature teenage times, where understandably impulsive instincts and youthful brashness overwhelmed reasons and composure, need not be held against the petitioner and deprive him of his right to seek public appointment permanently. In such circumstances, the authority, who is to exercise his discretion in considering such cases is expected to display due empathy and larger understanding, before being subjectively satisfied of his decision. (emphasis added)19. It is also worthwhile to refer yet another order, dated 18.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8284 of 2020 and the relevant portion as found in paragraphs 15 to 17, is extracted as under:21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022“15. In the conspectus of the above development, this Court, has to examine, within the frame work of the principles evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as extracted supra, the validity of the discretion exercised by the authority concerned in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case. The law laid down on this aspect is clear on two issues as could be seen from the above extracted Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision. Firstly, the discretion vested in the authority to assess the suitability of the candidates in cases where the candidates are found involved in criminal cases, is preserved and protected. Secondly, how that discretion ought to be exercised has also been outlined in the above judgment in case of variegated nature of involvement in criminal offences from a petty offence to heinous crime across the spectrum of the criminal law. Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to evaluate in consonance with the established principles of judicial review of administrative action, as to whether the discretion exercised by the authority in this case, is fair and proper or the rejection by the authority is a reflection of pedantic and perfunctory application of mind. When a decision is vested on the authority to assess the suitability 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022of the candidates for appointment to the uniformed services, exercise of such discretion has to be extremely circumspect and wholesome, particularly when the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner herein was trivial and no criminality in the strict sense, could be attached to the offence even if the said offence is established before the Criminal Court. If mere registration of FIR on the stated offence can operate as an embargo against the petitioner for appointment to the uniformed service, the discretion to assess the suitability by the competent authority loses its legal or administrative significance.16. Once, admittedly, the competent authority is clothed with the ultimate responsibility of assessing the suitability of the candidates, when such responsibility is discharged in a particular manner to the detriment of the candidates, the onus shifts on this Court to review the decision taken by the authority, on the touchstone of fair play and good conscience. So much so this Court, while undertaking such review of the impugned action of the fourth respondent, primarily finds that the impugned decision is the result of callous and apathetic application of the Rule as mentioned in the impugned order in so far as the case on hand is concerned. Sticking to the rigours 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022of the letter of the Rule than to the spirit of the Regulation for which it was intended and enacted is a poor reflection of tunnel vision of officious disposition. 17. This Court is conscious of, of course, the objective of the relevant Rule is intended to weed out the elements with criminal antecedents, involved in serious criminal offences, to protect the Police Force from infiltration of such creepy elements. The intention apart, in the matter of implementation of the Rule in the given situation, the authority expected to act wisely and judiciously. The authority cannot blindfold himself and implement the Rule unmindful of the fact situation, allowing the vice of arbitrariness to take precedence in the decision making process, exposing the eventual decision to judicial interference. The authority notwithstanding the Rule, is empowered to assess the suitability of the candidate concerned, in a given situation, in furtherance of the spirit of the Rule and such discretion cannot be discharged uniformly across the Board, although the Rules are meant to be applied uniformly to all persons, but the uniformity requirement in the decision making process of the authority is meant to be applied in homogeneous 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022circumstances and not in respect of dissimilar situations across the spectrum as reasoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the “Avtar Singh's case (cited supra). It will be a travesty of justice if the authority who is invested with the power of deciding the suitability of the candidates embarks upon painting all the candidates with the same brush. Such exercise of power with mindless uniformity would only lead to miscarriage of justice. The discretion so vested under the Rule and the leverage provided would then become inane and pointless.” (emphasis added)20. In “Pawan Kumar versus Union of India and another” (Civil Appeal No.3574 of 2022, dt.05.02.2022), after quoting the guidelines narrated in the Avtar Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 13 as under:“13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.” (emphasis added)21. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances narrated above and having regard to the categoric pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and and this Court (cited supra), this Court is of the considered view that that the order of the learned single Judge as well as the original impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, are liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to the relief as sought for.22. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal succeeds and is allowed and the 26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022order of the learned single Judge, dated 02.03.2022. passed in W.P.No.6847 of 2020 as well as the original impugned order, dated 05.03.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Na.K.No.A2(2)/09927/2019 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Constable Grade-II, without reference to the case once registered against him and pass appropriate orders, granting him notional seniority with his batch, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.23. It is made clear that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (cited supra) has laid down broad guidelines as to how to deal with the claims of the candidates who are involved in criminal cases and who suppressed the information and to exercise their discretion, the appointing authorities must follow the said guidelines before passing the adverse orders against the selected candidates, rejecting their candidature or cancelling their selection. The authorities shall pass orders, giving sufficient reasons in line with the guidelines, without adopting a mechanical 27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022approach in rejecting the candidatures/cancelling the selection merely based on the fact of pending criminal case or involvement in the criminal case or non disclosure of the involvement in the criminal case by the candidates concerned.(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,) 02.07.2025Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NosukTo 1. The Director General of PoliceDr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-42.The Member SecretaryTamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore Chennai-83.The Superintendent of PoliceDistrict Police Office, Thiruvannamalai District28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022J.NISHA BANU, J.andM.JOTHIRAMAN,J.sukW.A.No.1669 of 202202.07.202529/29

W.A.No.1669 of 20223. Before the learned single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid criminal case was registered against the appellant when he was aged about 18 years and it was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 05.12.2019 and therefore, there is no embargo to consider him for selection to the said post and suppression of pendency of criminal case in his application would not be fatal to his selection.4. While on behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the appellant submitted his application for the post on 30.03.2019 and on which, date, the above said criminal case was still pending against him, however, the appellant has deliberately suppressed the same and as per Rule 13(b) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, if a criminal case is pending against the candidate at the time of submitting the application, such candidate cannot be considered for selection to the post and in the event of the criminal case ended in acquittal, his candidature can be considered for the next selection. 5. The learned Judge, on consideration of the above submission 3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022including the relevant decisions relied upon by both parties, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that as on the date of submitting the application for the post, a criminal case was pending against the appellant which was not disclosed by him and as per Rule 13(b) and (e), the appellant is not entitled to claim appointment even though he is selected for the same. 6. Questioning the order of the learned single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.7. Mr. B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was a student aged 18 years at the relevant time and he was not aware of the domestic dispute that was initiated by the neighbours against his father, mother, sister and the appellant, however, later the matter was amicably settled and the learned Magistrate, vide judgment dated 5.12.2019, closed the matter and acquitted the appellant. He would contend that the appellant was involved in a case of trivial nature which ended in compromise which even if disclosed would not rendered the appellant unfit for the post and the employer ought to have ignored the 4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022suppression of fact by condoning the lapse by exercising his discretionary. However, the authority, in a routine manner, merely taking note of the suppression of fact and pendency of criminal case, removed the name of the appellant from the provisional select list by way of impugned order, which cannot be sustained, in the light of the several decisions, more particularly, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Avtar Singh versus Union of India and others” reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. He would refer to paragraphs 38.4.1, 38.4.3, 38.6 and 38.8, which are extracted as under:“38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse..........38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.............38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully 5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.............38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.”8. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would contend that the authority who is vested with the discretionary power of assessing the suitability of the candidates in question, ought to have probed into the matter regarding the involvement of the appellant in criminal case and its disposal either conviction/acquittal, in which event, the authority would have certainly come to know that the appellant was involved in a case of trivial nature which ended in acquittal, which may not be a relevant factor to disqualify his selection to the post and as such, while exercising his discretionary power, the authority ought to have condoned the lapse on the part of the appellant for suppression of pendency of the criminal case. However, without resorting to this exercise, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order, which was unfortunately, confirmed by the learned 6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022single Judge. With these contentions, the learned Senior counsel would urge this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge as well as the original impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent.9. On the other hand, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Addl.Advocate General would submit that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case at the relevant time, but deliberately suppressed the information in his application while applying for the post, which is a serious lapse on his part and any person who conceals material information is unfit to be employed in the Police Force where the standard of discipline is higher and is mandatory in all respects. He would also contend that as per Rule 13(b) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, if any candidate involves in a criminal case at the time of submitting the application, such candidate cannot be considered for selection to the post and in the event of the criminal case ended in acquittal, his candidature would be considered for the next selection. He would submit that the 2nd respondent, having considered the fact that the appellant has suppressed the information regarding his involvement in a criminal case, has rightly 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022cancelled his selection by the 3rd respondent vide impugned proceedings, which was rightly confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court and hence, the same does not require any interference.10. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl.Advocate General for the respondents and perused the entire materials on record.11. It is not in dispute that as on the date of submitting the application for the post, i.e. on 30.03.2019, a criminal case in C.C.No.106 of 2018 was pending against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengam and that the appellant has not disclosed the same in his application. But it is to be noted that the case in which the appellant was involved was pertaining to a domestic dispute, which is of trivial nature and ended in compromise and thereby, the appellant was acquitted even prior to publication of the selection list. 12. As regards the issue of cancelling of the selection on the ground 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022of suppression of information or submitting false information regarding pendency of criminal case and effect of conviction/acquittal, there were conflicting views of different High Courts. On making a reference, the said controversy has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Avtar Singh versus Union of India and others” reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, wherein, after analysing the divergent views, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a holistic approach and summarised the following yardsticks in paragraph 38, which are reproduced hereunder:“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 202238.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”13. The above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly paragraphs 38.4.1, 38.4.3, 38.6 and 38.8, would aptly apply to the case on hand, wherein, the appellant was a minor aged 18 years at the time of 12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022registration of the FIR and later, when he crossed 18 years, his name was included and filed the charge sheet and it was pending at the time when the appellant was applying for the subject post. However, it is pertinent to note that the case was relating to a domestic dispute, which is of trivial in nature and it was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 05.12.2019 in C.C.No.106 of 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengam. Mere involvement in a criminal case, which is of trivial in nature, should not be given colour of criminality to deny the public employment to an aspirant, who became successful in the selection process. Thus, applying the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its entirety, non-disclosure of the criminal case pending against him by the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, would have any material significance for the authority to cancel the selection of the appellant. 14. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined as to how the discretion to be exercised by an employer in the matter of assessing the suitability of a candidate who was involved in a criminal case and suggested even to ignore the suppression of fact or false information by condoning the 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022lapse if the criminal case involved by the candidate at young age, is of trivial in nature. Therefore, when the authority is vested with the discretionary power, before cancelling the selection of a candidate, it is incumbent on his part to enquire into the matter and find out as to whether he/she was involved in a criminal case of trivial nature or petty case and his/her acquittal is honourary one. In the present case, it is to be noted that though at the time of applying for the post, there was a criminal case pending against the appellant, however, the said case which is of trivial in nature not involving moral turpitude, ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 05.12.2019, i.e. even prior to the publication of provisional selection list, which was said to have been published on 04.02.2020. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, if enquired about the background of the criminal case and nature of the offences, etc., he would have certainly come to know that the appellant was involved in a criminal case at young age, which is of trivial nature and he was already acquitted by the trial Court and then, the same would not be a relevant factor or impediment to cancel his selection by condoning the lapse on the part of the appellant in suppressing the information of his involvement in the criminal case. Therefore, when a 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022discretion is vested on the authority to assess the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the uniformed services, exercise of such discretion has to be extremely circumspect and wholesome, particularly, when the nature of the offence alleged against the appellant herein was trivial in nature and no criminality in the strict sense, could be attached to such offence even if the said offence is established before the Criminal Court. Mere registration of FIR against the candidate and pending trial, particularly, the registered criminal case is trivial in nature, even ended in conviction, taking into consideration that the appellant was very young aged about 19 years, cannot operate as an embargo for consideration of his candidature to the appointment. 15. In similar circumstances in a case of “Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar”, (2011) 4 SCC 644, wherein, the candidate, who was young aged, had concealed the fact of his in a criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form, which led to the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable, to which he was provisionally selected. This was challenged before the Delhi High Court, 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022which, on consideration of entire facts, held that the cancellation of his selection, is illegal and the Department had taken the matter to the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on consideration of the entire facts, particularly, the age of the candidate who was aged 20 years when FIR was registered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 8:“8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.“11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.“12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."(emphasis added)16. Following the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court in “Vikas Kumar versus State of Rajasthan” 2025 SCCOnLine Raj396, has held in para 15 as under:“15. Youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people, particularly in their late teens and early twenties, are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. At this stage, they often act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well thought out. A punitive approach that permanently brands 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society. (emphasis added)17. In the present case as already stated above, the appellant at the age of 19 years, was involved in a criminal case which pertains to a domestic dispute that was initiated by the neighbours against him and his family members, which later ended in compromise and the appellant was acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, the indiscretions committed by the appellant ought to have been condoned rather than to brand him as criminal for the rest of his life. Generally, a candidate who was involved in a criminal case, while filling up the application, may not be in a position to give correct particulars due to fear or hesitation that his application itself would be summarily rejected at the threshold even though he was acquitted honourably or involved in a petty case. Therefore, mere suppression of the information alone is not the criteria to cancel the selection of the candidate who, after all, by his hard work and well preparation, cleared all the stages of selection process and is selected provisionally. It is for the authority who 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022is vested with the discretionary power to take into consideration of the candidates' involvement in the criminal case, nature of the offences, the manner in which he or she was acquitted and whether the non disclosure of the involvement was material, intentional or deliberate. There are several aspects like these to be considered before resorting to the cancellation of the selection of the candidate. But, unfortunately, the authorities have been adopting a mechanical approach in rejecting the candidatures merely on the basis of the involvement of the candidates in the criminal cases, which shows that the authorities even might not be aware of the categorical pronouncements rendered by this Court and the Hon'be Supreme Court, particularly, the renowned judgment in 'Avtar Singh's case on the subject issue of 'suppression of information'. 18. It is worthwhile to refer an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17530 of 2019 dated 02.06.2020. The relevant portion as found in paragraphs 21 to 23, is extracted as under:“21.No doubt, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Avtar Singh case, which is holding the field, the power and discretion is vested in the authority concerned to assess 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022the suitability of the candidate in cases where the candidates were involved in criminal cases and were acquitted, nevertheless, the discretion so exercised is not beyond the judicial review of this Court. After all, any decision of the authority is always subjected to judicial review if the same is put to challenge on legitimate grounds. There may be situation that the authority may feel that his decision is right and not to be faulted with, but such decision may also be subjected to interference, when dispassionate consideration is the underlying principle adopted by the Courts by judging the merits and demerits of the respective claims, sans officious predilection. 22. In substance, this Court finds that the discretion, which is delegated to the employer, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, has been exercised more dutifully and less objectively and in such view of the matter, this Court finds it imperative to intervene in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 23.Further, factually this Court finds that the petitioner is only 28 years old, as per his indication in the affidavit and he must have been in his teen at the time when the alleged criminal offence took place in 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 20222009. Even assuming that the petitioner was involved in a scuffle, which led to the framing of criminal charges against him, a solitary act of aberration in the conduct of the petitioner, at the time of his impressionable age with susceptible mind, cannot result in dubbing the person of criminality for all times to come. Although this Court is conscious of the fact that the recruitment is to the disciplined Police Force, yet, even if the standards of discipline are of higher degree, an incident happened during the immature teenage times, where understandably impulsive instincts and youthful brashness overwhelmed reasons and composure, need not be held against the petitioner and deprive him of his right to seek public appointment permanently. In such circumstances, the authority, who is to exercise his discretion in considering such cases is expected to display due empathy and larger understanding, before being subjectively satisfied of his decision. (emphasis added)19. It is also worthwhile to refer yet another order, dated 18.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8284 of 2020 and the relevant portion as found in paragraphs 15 to 17, is extracted as under:21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022“15. In the conspectus of the above development, this Court, has to examine, within the frame work of the principles evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as extracted supra, the validity of the discretion exercised by the authority concerned in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case. The law laid down on this aspect is clear on two issues as could be seen from the above extracted Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision. Firstly, the discretion vested in the authority to assess the suitability of the candidates in cases where the candidates are found involved in criminal cases, is preserved and protected. Secondly, how that discretion ought to be exercised has also been outlined in the above judgment in case of variegated nature of involvement in criminal offences from a petty offence to heinous crime across the spectrum of the criminal law. Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to evaluate in consonance with the established principles of judicial review of administrative action, as to whether the discretion exercised by the authority in this case, is fair and proper or the rejection by the authority is a reflection of pedantic and perfunctory application of mind. When a decision is vested on the authority to assess the suitability 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022of the candidates for appointment to the uniformed services, exercise of such discretion has to be extremely circumspect and wholesome, particularly when the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner herein was trivial and no criminality in the strict sense, could be attached to the offence even if the said offence is established before the Criminal Court. If mere registration of FIR on the stated offence can operate as an embargo against the petitioner for appointment to the uniformed service, the discretion to assess the suitability by the competent authority loses its legal or administrative significance.16. Once, admittedly, the competent authority is clothed with the ultimate responsibility of assessing the suitability of the candidates, when such responsibility is discharged in a particular manner to the detriment of the candidates, the onus shifts on this Court to review the decision taken by the authority, on the touchstone of fair play and good conscience. So much so this Court, while undertaking such review of the impugned action of the fourth respondent, primarily finds that the impugned decision is the result of callous and apathetic application of the Rule as mentioned in the impugned order in so far as the case on hand is concerned. Sticking to the rigours 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022of the letter of the Rule than to the spirit of the Regulation for which it was intended and enacted is a poor reflection of tunnel vision of officious disposition. 17. This Court is conscious of, of course, the objective of the relevant Rule is intended to weed out the elements with criminal antecedents, involved in serious criminal offences, to protect the Police Force from infiltration of such creepy elements. The intention apart, in the matter of implementation of the Rule in the given situation, the authority expected to act wisely and judiciously. The authority cannot blindfold himself and implement the Rule unmindful of the fact situation, allowing the vice of arbitrariness to take precedence in the decision making process, exposing the eventual decision to judicial interference. The authority notwithstanding the Rule, is empowered to assess the suitability of the candidate concerned, in a given situation, in furtherance of the spirit of the Rule and such discretion cannot be discharged uniformly across the Board, although the Rules are meant to be applied uniformly to all persons, but the uniformity requirement in the decision making process of the authority is meant to be applied in homogeneous 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022circumstances and not in respect of dissimilar situations across the spectrum as reasoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the “Avtar Singh's case (cited supra). It will be a travesty of justice if the authority who is invested with the power of deciding the suitability of the candidates embarks upon painting all the candidates with the same brush. Such exercise of power with mindless uniformity would only lead to miscarriage of justice. The discretion so vested under the Rule and the leverage provided would then become inane and pointless.” (emphasis added)20. In “Pawan Kumar versus Union of India and another” (Civil Appeal No.3574 of 2022, dt.05.02.2022), after quoting the guidelines narrated in the Avtar Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 13 as under:“13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.” (emphasis added)21. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances narrated above and having regard to the categoric pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and and this Court (cited supra), this Court is of the considered view that that the order of the learned single Judge as well as the original impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, are liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to the relief as sought for.22. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal succeeds and is allowed and the 26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022order of the learned single Judge, dated 02.03.2022. passed in W.P.No.6847 of 2020 as well as the original impugned order, dated 05.03.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Na.K.No.A2(2)/09927/2019 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Constable Grade-II, without reference to the case once registered against him and pass appropriate orders, granting him notional seniority with his batch, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.23. It is made clear that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (cited supra) has laid down broad guidelines as to how to deal with the claims of the candidates who are involved in criminal cases and who suppressed the information and to exercise their discretion, the appointing authorities must follow the said guidelines before passing the adverse orders against the selected candidates, rejecting their candidature or cancelling their selection. The authorities shall pass orders, giving sufficient reasons in line with the guidelines, without adopting a mechanical 27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022approach in rejecting the candidatures/cancelling the selection merely based on the fact of pending criminal case or involvement in the criminal case or non disclosure of the involvement in the criminal case by the candidates concerned.(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,) 02.07.2025Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NosukTo 1. The Director General of PoliceDr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-42.The Member SecretaryTamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore Chennai-83.The Superintendent of PoliceDistrict Police Office, Thiruvannamalai District28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1669 of 2022J.NISHA BANU, J.andM.JOTHIRAMAN,J.sukW.A.No.1669 of 202202.07.202529/29