P.S.Selva Vinoth v. The Director General Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM P.S.Selva Vinoth ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Chennai-4.
2.The Inspector General of Police (Welfare), O/o.The Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Chennai-4.
3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District Police, Madurai-7.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in RC.No.B1/23600/2017 dated 26.09.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable within the time period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman for M/s.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent :
Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General 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. 1/5
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, the criminal cases were registered against the petitioner in Crime No.111 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Crime No.122 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 506 (i) of IPC r/w 4 of TNPHW Act.
3. In both criminal cases, the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail. But, the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal case both in the application as well as during verification. The criminal cases ended with compromise and based on the compromise, it was quashed in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.1466 and 1469 of 2019 on 29.01.2019. However, the Selection Committee considered all the mitigating factors and formed an opinion that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal case both at the time of submitting the application and at the time of verification. Therefore, the Selection committee held that the antecedents are not satisfactory and accordingly, rejected the candidature of the petitioner.
4. 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 25.08.2021 held as follows:-
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...
2/5
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 3/5
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."
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Chennai-4.
2.The Inspector General of Police (Welfare), O/o.The Inspector General of Police (Welfare), Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Chennai-4.
3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District Police, Madurai-7.
+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-14404[F] dated 25/03/2022 ) 4/5
+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-14732[F] dated 28/03/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-14867[F] dated 28/03/2022 ) 24.03.2022 NSN(CO) KB(04.04.2022) 5P 7C 5/5