1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1387 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapur, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairman, TamilNadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. G.Ramamoorthy ... Respondent/ Petitioner Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.04.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.2207 of 2011. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue appointment order to him to the post of Grade II Police Constable / Grade II Jail Warders / Firemen 2010. For Appellants : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 01.04.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.2207 of 2011, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein seeking for the relief of direction to the first respondent in the said writ petition to issue appointment order to him to the post of Grade II Police/Grade II Jail Warders/Firemen-2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants wound contend that the respondent herein was involved in a criminal case and thereafter, he was acquitted, but he has not mentioned in the application form about his involvement in the criminal case and as such, he is disqualified for appointment. It is contended that on verification, it was found that he was previously involved in a criminal case. The learned Government Advocate would place reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Manikandan Vs. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, reported in 2008(2) CTC 97. 3.We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Government Advocate and perused the writ Court order dated 01.04.2011 and other materials available on record. 4.At the outset, it is to be stated that the respondent, who has been involved in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 294(b) IPC, was acquitted by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, by a judgment dated 07.04.2010 and on the other hand, the notification for the post of Grade II Police Constable was made only subsequent to the judgment of acquittal dated 07.04.2010. The writ Court also pointed out this factor in paragraph No.5 of its order. As far as the Full Bench decision is concerned, it is squarely pointed out in paragraph No.37 as hereunder: "From the above table, it is seen that the petitioners in all these writ petitions were involved in criminal cases for offences under the Indian Penal Code and that they have been acquitted after the selection process commenced." 5.Therefore, in the said Full Bench decision, the writ petitioners have been acquitted only after the selection process are over, but in the instant case, it is pointed out by the writ Court that the petitioner, who has been implicated in a criminal case, was acquitted by the trial Court, as per the judgment dated 07.04.2010, well before the notification for the post of Grade II Police Constable. Apart from such factor, it is also relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 644. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph No.8 as hereunder: "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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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." 6.It is further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the very same decision as hereunder: "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 did 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." 7.As far as the case on hand is concerned, the appellant has been implicated only for certain minor offences, as pointed out earlier and the writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition. Therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the writ Court order. 8.In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any ground warranting interference of this Court in the writ Court order. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapur, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairman, TamilNadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1387 of 2011 Dated:02.12.2011 gcg SMA/19.12.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/