The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services, v. V.Vasanth
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3117 of 2020 and 26 of 2022 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, 807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
... Appellants/Respondents Vs.
V.Vasanth ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the judgment dated 08.01.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.24995 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Ms.M.Gobika for Mr.D.Balamurugapandi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The Writ Appeal has been instituted challenging the order passed in W.P. (MD).No.24995 of 2018 dated 08.01.2019.
2. Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for selection and appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable, the respondent participated in the process of selection.
3. The respondent was successful in the written examination and during the certificate verification, the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding registration of a criminal case against him. He has filled up the verification roll
form and in Column 15, he has stated that there is no criminal case against him. But the fact remains that a criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.135/2018 under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of PPDL Act. The respondent was an accused in the said criminal case. In yet another case in Crime No.107/2018 also, the respondent is arrayed as A2. But, the respondent has not furnished the details regarding the registration of criminal case in the verification form signed by him. Citing the said suppression of fact in the verification form, the District Police Office rejected the candidature of the respondent for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable.
4. The Writ Court considered the case of the respondent mainly on the ground that there is no application of mind on the part of the authorities while rejecting the candidature of the respondent by passing the impugned order.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the Inspector of Police, Kamudhi Police Station colluded with the respondent for deleting the name of the respondent from the name of the accused in the criminal case. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Inspector of Police based on the report submitted by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mudukulathur Sub Division dated 12.03.2020.
6. May that as it be, the fact remains that two criminal cases are registered against the respondent. The appellants have produced the application form as well as the verification form signed by the respondent. Though the criminal case was registered subsequently after signing the application form, the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal case in the verification form, wherein, a question was asked whether any criminal case has been registered against him or not.
7. Suppression of fact is a ground for rejection of candidature. The selection is to the post of Grade II Police Constable in Uniformed Services. Even if a candidate has not suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal case, still the Selection Committee is empowered to assess the antecedents of a person for selection to the post of Uniformed Services. It is a disciplined force and character and antecedents are of paramount importance. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again reiterated that selection to Uniformed Services are to be made by the Committee and the decision of the Committee becomes final since it involves verification of antecedents of a person. The
Court cannot substitute the views of the Selection Committee in such matters, where the Committee formed an opinion that a particular candidate is not fit for Uniformed Services. Therefore, the reason stated by the Writ Court that there is no application of mind, seems to be incorrect. The file produced before this Court would show that the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding registration of a criminal case against him. Thus, the writ order dated 08.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD).No.24995 of 2018 is infirm and consequently, the same is set aside.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 25.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.
Lm 25.06.2025