M.Ravikumar v. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 002 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.10.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.16813 of 2008M.Ravikumar .. PetitionerVs.1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 002.2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4. (R2 impleaded as per order dt.20.10.09 in M.P.No.3/09) .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating toMemorandum in Rc.No.D2/1313/2008, dated 2.5.2008 on the file of theRespondent herein followed by the Memorandum dated 23.5.2008 inRc.No.016253/Appointment-1(1), 2008-15 both on the file of thesecond respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct therespondents to consider the name of the petitioner withregistration No.1800699 for final selection and appointment to thepost of Grade II Police Constable in the services of the Tamil NaduPolice, within a time frame.For Petitioner : Mr.S.SubbiahFor Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakantan, GA ORDERThe petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking to setaside the order, dated 2.5.2008 passed by the first respondentfollowed by the order dated 23.5.2008 passed by the secondrespondent and for a consequential direction to consider his namefor selection and appointment to the post of Grade II PoliceConstable in the Tamil Nadu Police service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.By an order, dated 2.5.2008, the petitioner was informedthat the cut off mark for open quota for SC category is 63, but hehad scored only 51 marks. Therefore, his representation, dated27.2.2008 cannot be favourably considered. This order itself cameto be passed on a direction issued by the Madurai Bench of thisHigh Court in W.P.(MD) No.3227 of 2008, dated 4.4.2008. By thesaid order, this court directed the respondent to consider hisrepresentation in accordance with law. 3.Subsequently, the petitioner was informed, by a furtherorder, dated 23.5.2008 that after his getting through the writtenexaminations, his antecedents and character were enquired by them.The enquiry report revealed that he was involved in a criminal casein Crime No.281 of 2002. He was arrayed as accused No.3. The saidcase was concluded by invoking Section 167(5) Cr.P.C. by theJudicial Magistrate, Keeranur, vide his order, dated 21.9.2007. Thepetitioner's attention was drawn to rule 14(b) of the Tamil NaduPolice Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, whereinit was stated that in order to get an appointment in the service, aperson should not have got involved in any criminal case and hisconduct and character must be satisfactory. In view of thesedefects, the petitioner was not appointed as a Police Constable.Subsequent to the writ petition, the petitioner had filed M.P.No.4of 2009 to amend the prayer and M.P.No.3 of 2009 to implead thesecond respondent. Those applications were ordered.4.On notice from this court, the respondents have filed acounter affidavit, dated 19.11.2008 and an additional counteraffidavit, dated Nil (November, 2008). While in the first counteraffidavit, the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.2.2008was considered and reason for his non-selection was that he had notreached the cut off mark. In the same counter affidavit, it wasalso stated that on verification, his antecedents were came to theknowledge of the respondents. Therefore, he cannot be given anyappointment and that he was not finally selected. 5.In the additional counter affidavit, though it was statedthat he had secured 63 marks and was eligible to be appointed, butin view of the fact that he was involved in a criminal case, he wasdisqualified from being appointed. 6.The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit, dated 18.4.2009.In the reply affidavit, it was stated that though his name wasimplicated in Crime No.281 of 2002, the Magistrate, by an orderdated 30.4.2004 had discharged the petitioner. The final reportitself was not filed on or before 10.1.2003. However, in theapplication submitted for verification, in column Nos.15 and 16, asagainst the questions, the petitioner gave the following answers inTamil:On translation15.Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant? ,y;iy (No) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.Have you ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence? If so, give details with C.C. No. and Court.,y;iy(No)7.This was sought to be explained. In the reply affidavit, itwas stated as follows:"21.As already submitted by me the non-reference to the above alleged offence in theapplication, in view of my wrong understandingas a layman to construe that question No.15deals with only a pending the case if any butnot a case which was already closed and if Ihad correctly understood clause 15, I wouldhave definitely disclosed the same in mayapplication."8.However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner inhis verification roll had given a negative answer, thereby tried tomislead the respondents from finding out his antecedents. This oneground is enough for denying the petitioner any employment. 9.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in R. Radhakrishnan v.Director General of Police reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7595 = (2008) 1SCC 660 dealt with an identical case. After referring to the samequestions 15 and 16 given by a police constable, wherein thatcandidate had given negative answers, the Supreme Court inparagraphs 9 to 13 held as follows:"9. The learned counsel furthermoresubmitted that in view of the fact that theappellant knew that he would be liable to bedismissed from service if the statement made inthe verification roll was found to be falsecannot now be heard to say that he omitted tomention the pendency of the criminal case under abona fide belief or otherwise.10. Indisputably, the appellant intended toobtain appointment in a uniformed service. Thestandard expected of a person intended to servein such a service is different from the one of aperson who intended to serve in other services.Application for appointment and the verificationroll were both in Hindi as also in English. He,therefore, knew and understood the implication ofhis statement or omission to disclose a vitalinformation. The fact that in the event such adisclosure had been made, the authority could https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have verified his character as also suitabilityof the appointment is not in dispute. It is alsonot in dispute that the persons who had not madesuch disclosures and were, thus, similarlysituated had not been appointed.11. The question came up for consideration beforethis Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar1 whereinit was categorically held: (SCC p.606, para 3)“3. … The Tribunal in the impugned orderallowed the application on the ground thatsince the respondent had been dischargedand/or acquitted of the offence punishableunder Section 304 IPC, under Section 324read with Section 34 IPC and under Section324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right ofappointment to the post under the State.The question is whether the view taken bythe Tribunal is correct in law? It is seenthat verification of the character andantecedents is one of the importantcriteria to test whether the selectedcandidate is suitable to a post under theState. Though he was found physically fit,passed the written test and interview andwas provisionally selected, on account ofhis antecedent record, the appointingauthority found it not desirable toappoint a person of such record as aConstable to the disciplined force. Theview taken by the appointing authority inthe background of the case cannot be saidto be unwarranted.”12. Mr Prabhakar has relied upon a decision ofthis Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director ofVikram Sarabhai Space Centre2. The said decisionhas been rendered, as would be evident from thejudgment itself, on special facts andcircumstances of the said case and cannot betreated to be a binding precedent.13. In the instant case, indisputably, theappellant had suppressed a material fact. In acase of this nature, we are of the opinion thatquestion of exercising an equitable jurisdictionin his favour would not arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.In the light of the above, no relief can be given to thepetitioner. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed However, therewill be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.vvkTo1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 002.2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4. ORDER INW.P.NO.16813 OF 2008KG (CO)A.S 05.11.2009