1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 5/9/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.9358 of 2011 P. Perumal ... Petitioner Vs The Director General of Police Mylapore Chennai 600 004. ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection passed by him in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.157175/Niyamanam.1(2)/2011 dated 20/6/2011 and consequential erratum order passed by him in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.157175/Niyamanam.1(2)/2011 dated 22/7/2011 and quash both as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2009 – 2010. For petitioner ... Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For respondent ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, AGP O R D E R Challenge in this writ petition, is to an order dated 20/6/2011 and a consequential order dated 22/7/2011, passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, rejecting the request of the petitioner, for appointment to the post of Police Constable on the ground that, his conduct was not satisfactory, in terms of Rule 14 (b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. 2. Inviting attention of this Court to the information furnished to the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act, Mr.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, that, when the petitioner, has disclosed the details of the criminal case in Crime Nos.12 of 2010 and 13 of 2010, registered against him, in the verification roll dated 3/12/2010 and also the result of the same that, he has been acquitted, under Section 248 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reason assigned by the respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner in the impugned order dated 20/6/2011, stating that the petitioner had suppressed the information sought for in column No.15, reflects non-application of mind. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the acquittal recorded by the criminal Court in C.C.Nos.167 and 771 of 2010 dated 23/12/2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, is a honourable acquittal and that therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment to the post of Grade II Head Constable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Per contra, inviting the attention of this Court to the judgments, in C.C.Nos.167/2010 and 771 of 2010 dated 23/12/2010, Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that, in the criminal case, many witnesses have turned hostile and in such circumstances, the acquittal was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal as per the statutory rules. Referring to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in (MANIKANDAN AND OTHERS Vs. 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES, RECRUITMENT BOARD, CHENNAI AND FOUR OTHERS) reported in 2008 (2) CTC – 97 , learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that, non-selection of the petitioner or the rejection of his candidature by the respondent, either on the basis of his involvement in criminal case, is perfectly valid and justified in terms of Rule 14 (b) of the Special Rules Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent further submitted that though in the earlier order dated 20/6/2011, the case of the petitioner was rejected, on the ground of suppression or non-disclosure of the criminal case registered against the petitioner, subsequently, after ascertaining the details, an erratum has been issued on 22/7/2011 by the respondent, stating that the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory for selection in terms of the above said Rules, and therefore, there is manifest illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Rule 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 reads as follows:- "No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority. (i). that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and (ii). That his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and (iii). That such a person does not have more than one wife living." 8. In the case on hand, the contention that the petitioner has been honourably acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti in C.C.Nos.167 of 2010 and 771 of 2010 cannot be countenanced for the reason that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, though there was evidence, due to hostility of the witnesses, the criminal charges could not be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and in such circumstances only the criminal Court has recorded acquittal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. This Court has gone through the judgments of the criminal Court, in the above referred cases and the contentions of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that once an erratum has been issued to the order dated 20/6/2011, it is not open to the writ petitioner to attack the impugned order on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the respondent. The petitioner has not satisfied the conditions set out in the rules. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Manikandan's case, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest illegality in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade – II Police Constable. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Mvs SR : 21.09.2011 : 3p/2c W.P.(MD) No.9358 of 2011 Dated 05.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/