1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.3398 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 D.Murugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. 2.The Additional Director General of Police, Chairman of Prisons, Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondents Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give the petitioner the training order for the post of Jail Warder of the Combined Recruitment of Gr.II Police Constables/Gr.II Jail Warders/ Firemen for the year 2010. For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Venkateswaran For Respondents .. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Addl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The petitioner, who participated in the selection process for Grade- II Police Constables, and not selected, on account of his involvement in a criminal case. in Crime No.76 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 324 IPC on the file of the Thevarkulam Police Station in C.C.No.248/07 and later on, acquitted by judgment dated 01.07.2008, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tirunelveli, has come forward with the present writ petition, seeking for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to give training for the post of Jail Warder of the Combined Recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables/Grade-II Jail Warders/Firemen, for the year 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he belong to Most Backward Community (De-notified Community). It is the further case of the petitioner that he has passed all the tests and secured cut-off marks more than the required and that therefore, he was allowed to medical test held in January 2011. After Police verification, he was not provided with appointment and training. Later on, he came to know that in the Police verification, the abovesaid criminal case has been put against him. 3.In addition to the above said pleadings and inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment made in C.C.No.248 of 2007, dated 01.07.2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, Mr.R.Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was arrayed as A3 in the complaint, he has been acquitted honourably and that therefore, he should have been provided with an appointment, as jail warder. He further submitted that amendment to rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 has been issued in G.O.Ms.No.1410, Home (Pr.II) Department, dated 17.10.2008 and that therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner, who has been acquitted on 01.07.2008 itself. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the registration of the criminal case is due to family dispute between the petitioner's father and his brother and at that time, the petitioner was only a minor and that therefore, mere involvement of the petitioner in the above criminal case, ought not to have been put against him and moreso when he has been honourably acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 5.Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the introduction of the rule itself is to maintain purity in the administration and to provide a check at the entry point itself and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7.As regards the first ground, perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.248 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tirunelveli, dated 01.07.2008, shows that to prove the offences under Sections 294(b), 427 and 324 IPC, on the file of Thevarkulam Police Station, the prosecution has examined three witnesses and marked 7 documents. In addition to the above, they also marked 4 MOs. The petitioner was arrayed as A3 in the above criminal case. No defence witness was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 examined. P.Ws.1 and 2 have turned hostile. However, perusal of the judgment shows that the application filed for compounding of the offences has been dismissed. Compounding of an offence can be made only the accused admits commission of the offence and there should be a provision enabling compounding. 8.Filing of the application for compounding itself would go to show that there was some evidence, but the application was not entertained. The offences could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and in such circumstances, acquittal has been recorded under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the contentions of the petitioner that there is an 'Honourable acquittal'. 9.The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the amendment to the rule has been issued only on 17.10.2008 and therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively also, cannot be acceptable for the reason that the rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, talks about the conduct and character of a person seeking entry into the disciplined force. Before the G.O. can be applied in respect of criminal cases prior to the date of selection and it is opposite to subsequent Antecedent means, a thing that existed before, and in the case on hand refers to criminal antecedent or events, which existed prior to or on the date an aspirant is considered for selection, as a member of the disciplined force. No doubt, the petitioner was a juvenile, at the time of commission of the offence. He was aged 17 years at the time, when he was implicated in the crime. The Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Manikandan Vs. Chairman, T.N.Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board reported in (2008 (2) CTC 97) is applicable to the facts of this Case. 10.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to Mandamus. Hence, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. 2.The Additional Director General of Police, Chairman of Prisons, Egmore, Chennai. +One CC to Mr.R.Venkateswaran, Advocate, SR.No.30759 +One CC to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.30943 MPK rl/5 c- 3.10.2011 W.P.(MD)No.3398 of 2011 08.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/