G. Karthick Raja v. The Chairman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P(MD).No.5807 of 2020 G.Karthick Raja ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.D.V. Senkalvarayar Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A5/19292/2019, dated 07.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Post of Grade-II Police Constable, Tamil Nadu State Police, in par with the appointees appointed vide Notification of the respondents for the year 2019 with pay and all other monetary benefits.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Balaji For Respondents :
Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate, Assisted by Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The order of rejection rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and he was successful in the written examination. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the physical verification test and Endurance test. However, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.90 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 451, 324, 307, 379, 506(ii) IPC on 14.05.2014. There is a case against the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC. The petitioner was acquitted under Section 235 (i) of Cr.P.C on the ground of hostility of complainant. The Selection Committee, on verification of character and antecedents, found that it is not satisfactory. Thus, the Committee formed an opinion that the petitioner is not suitable and eligible for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable.
This apart, the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding the registration of a criminal case against him in the application itself. Therefore, the Committee has taken into consideration regarding the suppression of fact about the registration of the criminal case in the application and rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar in C.A.No.4960 of 2021 dated 25.08.
26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission7 held as follows:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates
nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection."
29. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.
30. The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should
be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security."
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the verification of suitability, eligibility and antecedents are of paramount importance. The decision of the Selection Committee in this regard becomes final. High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee regarding the assessment of suitability, eligibility and verification of the antecedents. Once it is found that the petitioner has involved in criminal case, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ssb To 1.The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.D.V. Senkalvarayar Maligai, Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002.
2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai,Chennai-600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-14885[F] dated 28/03/2022 ) 24.03.2022 MGJ(04.04.2022) 5P 6C