V. Raj vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the

impugned order rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner, for appointment as constable.

The Petitioner was selected for appointment of constable, however on verification, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case,

accordingly, the Respondent rejected the candidature of the Petitioner.

The impugned order has been challenged by the Petitioner, on the ground that the Petitioner was acquitted of the charge, in the criminal court,

therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

In support this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in P. Virabhagu Vs. The Union of India (UOI), .

The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that the Petitioner cannot claim right to appointment, in view of the

judgment of the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court, in Manikandan and Ors. v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board,

Chennai and 4 others, 2008 (2) CTC 97, holding therein as under:

The issue is now set at rest by the Apex Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. The Director General of Police and Ors., 2007 (12) SCALE 539,

which is the latest in this series of decisions. The Supreme Court has clarified the law on the point, as follows:

Indisputably, the Appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such

a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both

in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact

that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in

dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who has not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.

The question came up for consideration before this Court in Prima Realty Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , wherein it was categorically

held:

3..... The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the Respondent and been discharged and/or acquitted of

the offence punishable u/s 304, Indian Penal Code, u/s 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. and u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, he cannot

be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen

that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under

the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent

record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken

by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.....

Mr. Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S. Vasudevan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Ors., 1998

Supp. SCC 795. The said decision has been rendered, as would be evident from the judgment itself, on special facts and circumstances of the said

case and cannot be treated to be a binding precedent.

In the instant case, indisputably, the Appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of

exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.

Thus the above latest decision of the Apex Court has cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue. Therefore we hold that the failure of a person to

disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the Application form is filled up, is fatal. His subsequent disclosure,

whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his

selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current

selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honorable or otherwise.

This writ petition is ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution, as the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not chosen to appear in the court.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No. costs.