W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 08.08.2025 Pronounced On : 18.09.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P. (MD) No.24221 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.21947 of 2018 Kaleeswaran, S/o.K.Packiyam, 3/479, opposite to Police Station, Enmanamkondan, Uchipuli Post, Ramanathapuram District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, Chennai -8. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER in W.P.: To issue an order, direction or writ more particularly Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No. A3/1001/2018 dated 28.11.2018 served to the petitioner on 01.12.2018 and further direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police constable within a stipulated time prescribed by this Hon’ble 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 Court and pass such other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. PRAYER in WMP: To grant an order of interim direction directing the respondents to keep one post vacant for the post of Grade II Police Constable, pending disposal of the writ petition and thus render justice. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES: For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General -II, Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader J U D G M E N T Heard. 2. The petitioner, an applicant for the post of Grade II Police Constable, participated in the selection process. However, upon scrutiny of his attestation form and the discovery of his criminal background, the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 was passed. The order cites the petitioner’s criminal background as the reason, stated as follows:— 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 “ 1) cr;rpg;g[sp fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;/224-2014 gpupt[ 294(b). 323. 324. 506(ii) tHf;Fg;gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L ,tu; 4tJ vjpupahf nru;f;fg;gl;Ls;shu;/ gpd;du; 4tJ vjpupahd ,tu;kPJ ,ju gpupt[fs; 294(b). 323d;fPH; Fw;wk; tidag;gl;lJ/ ,t;tHf;fhdJ ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; ePjpkd;wk; vz;?2. ,uhkehjg[uk; jPu;g;g[ Mz;Lg;gl;oif tHf;F vz;/149-2015 ehs;/03/02/2018d;go re;njfj;jpd; gyid mila vjpupfs; jFjpa[ilatu;fshf fUjp Fw;wthsp ,y;iybad jPu;khdpj;J nkw;go gpupt[fspypUe;J vjpup FtpKr gpupt[ 248 (1)d; fPH; tpLjiy bra;J jPu;g;gspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 2) ,t;tptuj;ij tpz;zg;gjhuu; tpz;zg;gj;ij g{u;j;jp bra;a[k;nghJ tpz;zg;gotj;jpy; jhd; Fw;wtHf;fpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l tptu';fs; kw;Wk; cz;ikfs; midj;Jk; mtuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/” 3. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 12.12.2018. Subsequently, on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, a counter affidavit dated 30.09.2024 was filed. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, the denial of appointment was justified in the following terms:— “5…On verification of OMR application submitted by the petitioner at the time of filing application in reply to the Question in column No.26 and 26(a) of the OMR Application Form, he has not mentioned his involvement into criminal case and suppressed it by Answering “No” mentioned that no case is pending against him. As per rule 13(b) and (e) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and that he has not involved in any criminal case before 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 police verification. As per explanation (1) of rule 13(e) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules a person who is acquitted on benefit of doubt due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. The constitutional validity of the above said rule has been upheld by the full bench of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(MD) No. 38289/2005 dated 28.02.2008.” 4. The issue is no longer res integra. The relevant rule under which the petitioner was denied employment has already been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court, and subsequently affirmed by a Five-Judge Bench. The Larger Bench, in its decision in J. Alex Ponseelan v. Director General of Police, reported in 2014 (2) CTC 337, finally settled the issue. The reasoning is set out in paragraphs 81 to 84, as follows:— “81. A cursory look of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court would clearly go to show that police force is a disciplined force, wherein a person who is having atmost rectitude is eligible for recruitment. The person who has involved in criminal case is totally unfit for such recruitment. 82. Since the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehar Singh's case is similar to the object of Explanations 1 and 2 of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, it is needless to say that the same should be held as intra vires. Further in view of the discussion made earlier, the law laid 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 down in Manikandan's case reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, still holds field and the same need not be overruled as the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed holding as follows: "No ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly." 83. It has become shunless to say that Clause IV of Rule 14(b) together with Explanations 1 and 2 have been introduced only for the purpose of recruiting persons who are having rectitude and not persons involved in criminal case(s). The Government of Tamil Nadu have introduced the same with atmost summum bonum for the purpose of maintaining a disciplined police force. Since Clause IV of Rule 14(b) and its Explanations 1 and 2 have been introduced with atmost good faith, nobody is entitled to have a furtive look upon it. 84. It has already been discussed elaborately and decided that the doubts raised by the learned Referring Judge for making the present Reference are not legally sustainable and further for the examples given by the learned Referring Judge, the decision rendered in Mehar Singh's case reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, stands as a befitting answer, and therefore, there is no merit in the Reference in question and answered the same accordingly and no other points have been raised on either side.” 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 5. The concurring of R. Sudhakar J who presided over the Bench opinion is recorded in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment, which read as follows:— “21. I, therefore, answer the reference in the following: (i)The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan’s case, reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 is a good law. (ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1 and 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules is intra vires of the Constitution, as has already been held by the Full bench in the Manikandan’s case and by the learned Single Judge in N.Veeramani’s case. 22. Before parting, I may observe that I have had the privilege of perusing the judgments proposed by my learned brothers Justice S.Tamilvanan and Justice A.Selvam and it had been my endevour not to repeat the reasonings of A.Selvam J. with whom I respectfully agree and, with utmost respect, I dissent from the views of S.Tamilvanan, J” 6. Since the Larger Bench affirmed the order of the earlier Full Bench in Manikandan’s case (cited supra), it becomes necessary to refer to the reasoning adopted by the Full Bench in relation to the recruitment of candidates with adverse antecedents into the police service. The Full Bench held as follows:— 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 “In answer to the reference made to the Full Bench, we hold- (a) that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14 (b) of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and (b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case. In view of the above, all the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.” 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not fit to be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The connected W.M.P. is closed. No order as to costs. 18.09.2025 Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No LS/ay 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.24221 of 2018 DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J. LS Copy to: 1. The Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, Chennai -8. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. Pre-delivery Judgment made in W.P. (MD) No.24221 of 2018 18.09.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis