C.Arunkumar v. The Director General Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2021 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE THIRU.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN C.Arunkumar ... Appellant vs.
1)The Director General of Police, State Head Quarters Office, Chennai-4.
2)The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3)The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.
4)The Inspector of Police, Chathirapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
... Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 21.10.2021 made in Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.88 of 2021 in W.P(MD) No.12670 of 2018.
Prayer in REV.APLW(MD). 88/ 2021 :
Review Application filed under order 47 rules 1 and 2 under section 114 of CPC to review in WP(MD) No.12670 of 2018 dated 10.05.2019, on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.
Prayer in WP(MD). 12670/ 2018 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd Respondent relating to the impugned order vide RC.No.B1/15331/162/2018 dated 26.04.2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to issue appointment order to the Petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2017 and pass such further or other orders 1/3
For Appellant : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.) The writ appeal is directed against the order passed in Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.88 of 2021, dated 21.10.2021. 2.
The matter relates to recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables. The learned single Judge had taken it as a batch and categorised into three, namely, i) candidates those who have not disclosed in the application form that they were involved in the criminal case; ii) even though they were involved in the criminal case, they were acquitted; and iii) whether they were honorably acquitted or by way of benefit of doubt.
3.
In the case of the appellant, he was rejected, because, he has not disclosed in the application form that he was involved in the criminal case.
4.
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was a juvenile on the date, he was involved in the criminal case.
5.
Be that as it may, the reason for rejection is that the appellant has not disclosed the details in the application form. It is not only that the appellant was involved in the criminal case, but his acquittal was only based on benefit of doubt and not of honorable acquittal.
Therefore, on both the reasons, his application was rejected. In the review also, the learned Judge did not find any error apparent on the face of the record and it was rejected. It is to be noted that there is no writ appeal filed against the original order passed in the writ petition. As the scope of review itself is very limited, the same was rejected. We also see no reasons, on merits, to entertain this writ appeal. 2/3
6.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) bala To 1)The Director General of Police, State Head Quarters Office, Chennai-4.
2)The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3)The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.
4)The Inspector of Police, Chathirapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-35648[F] dated 24/11/2021 ) JUDGMENT MADE IN DATED : 22.11.2021 KMV(CO) GC(02.12.2021) 3P 6C 3/3