S.Karthick v. The Director General Of Police (Tamil Nadu)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR S.Karthick ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director General of Police (Tamil Nadu), Head of Police Force, Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
(In Cr. No.2/2021) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 in Na.KA.No.A3/19700/105/2020 passed by the second respondent and Page No. 1 of 6
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider appointing and permit the petitioner to join the duty of Grade-II Police Constable in the respondent's department.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader ******
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.A3/19700/105/2020 dated 17.03.2022, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2020 was rejected on the ground that a criminal case in Crime No. 02/2021 was pending against him under the provisions of the POCSO Act and also on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the said pending criminal case while submitting his application.
2. The impugned order came to be passed as early as on 17.03.2022 in respect of the recruitment initiated by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in the year 2020. Though it is contended that Page No. 2 of 6
one of the reasons assigned in the impugned proceedings is factually incorrect, namely, with regard to the alleged suppression of the pendency of the criminal case, the pendency of the said criminal case is not in dispute.
3. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, he ought to have approached this Court immediately after passing of the said order. However, for reasons best known to him, the petitioner has waited for more than four years to challenge the said proceedings dated 17.03.2022 and has approached this Court only in April 2026.
4. The recruitment process initiated in the year 2020 would have been completed long ago and the notified posts would have already been filled up. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to seek to turn the clock back.
5. No doubt, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case by judgment dated 09.06.2025 in Spl.S.C.No. 30 of 2023. However, the same cannot be a ground to condone the delay in approaching this Court, Page No. 3 of 6
particularly in matters relating to recruitment or appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable.
6. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not operate as an impediment to the petitioner participating in future recruitment processes. In the event the petitioner participates in any future recruitment, his case shall be considered in accordance with law and on par with other similarly situated candidates, notwithstanding the dismissal of this petition.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 15.04.2026 JEN NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To 1.The Director General of Police (Tamil Nadu), Head of Police Force, Mylapore, Chennai.
Page No. 4 of 6
2.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.
4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
Page No. 5 of 6
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J.
JEN 15.04.2026 Page No. 6 of 6