The above writ petition has been filed for issuing Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 10.07.2014 and to direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade for the year 2013-2014.
2.Heard Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3.The first respondent issued a notification on 02.09.2013 for the recruitment of Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013. The notification is for filling up of 10,500 posts throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. 230 posts were allotted to the native district of petitioner, namely, Dindigul District.
4.The qualification prescribed for the post of Special Police Youth Brigade are as follows:
(a) Must have passed 10th standard examination.
(b) Must be a person of good character and should be physically fit.
(c) Must be a resident of Tamil Nadu.
5.The petitioner submitted his application before the second respondent on 25.09.2014. The petitioner was called for written examination which was scheduled to be held on 10.11.2013 and secured 60 out of 100 marks. After successful completion of written examination, the petitioner was called for physical measurement test, physical endurance test and for certificate verification which was held on 31.12.2013. The petitioner was provisionally selected and police verification and medical examinations were held on 19.01.2014 and 20.01.2014 respectively. At the time of police verification, it appears that the petitioner furnished to the respondent the particulars of criminal case registered against him in Crime No.295 of 2007 on the file of Dindigul Taluk police station. Though the petitioner was convicted in the said case by the trail Court, on appeal before the District Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, in Crl. A. No.27 of 2010 the petitioner was acquitted. Hence, when the petitioner submits the application, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not appointed for reasons unknown to the petitioner, the petitioner states that he filed an earlier Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2144 of 2014 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.02.2014 with a direction to the respondents to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2014, within a period of eight weeks. The second respondent thereafter, by the impugned proceeding dated 10.07.2014 rejected the petitioner's claim for the appointment to the post of Youth Brigade on the only ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and that his conduct and character is therefore not good. The reason for rejection was by relying upon Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013.
6.The second respondent filed a counter affidavit contesting the case of the petitioner on various grounds. It is the contention of the second respondent that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case with reference to Crime No.295 of 2007 for the alleged offences under
Sections 341,323,324 and
307 I.P.C. It was further contented that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, convicted the accused including the petitioner who is the third accused in the criminal case to undergo two years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Session Court, Dindigul, in Crl. A. No.27 of 2010, the respondent contented that the information regarding the nature of order passed in Crl. A. No.27 of 2010 was not furnished to the respondent.
7.The second respondent further relied upon Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013, and contented that only a person who is physically fit and having good character is eligible for appointment and that the petitioner whose acquittal was based on want of proof and other technicalities, is not eligible for the post.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere involvement in a criminal case is not an absolute bar for appointment to the post of Youth Brigade and that Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013, does not contemplate disqualifying a candidate merely because he was implicated in a criminal case even though the candidate was latter acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013, and submitted that none of the rules specify any bar to make any one ineligible merely because the candidate was involved in a criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is only under Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, there is a bar for appointing any person who is involved in criminal case. In the absence of such specific provision in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013, it was contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order denying the appointment to the petitioner on the sole ground of petitioner's involvement in a criminal case, ignoring the final order that was passed by the Appellate Court, acquitting to the petitioner, is unlawful.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon few precedents which has relevance in the present case. In the case of Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 377, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
?24.However, in the present case, we have observed that the appellant was involved in a family feud and the FIR came to be lodged against him on 14.04.1998, after he had applied for the post of Constable. Further, he had been acquitted on 04.10.1999 i.e., much before he was called for the interview / medical examination / written test. Further, as per Rule 12.18, emphasis has been laid on the freedom or otherwise from conviction. An interpretation of the Rules referred to supra clearly indicate that an acquittal in a criminal case will qualify him for appointment to the post of Police Constable, as the appellant had successfully qualified the other requisites required for his selection. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the trial court that as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant by adducing cogent evidence, therefore, the police authorities cannot be allowed to sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in its judgment, wherein the appellant has been honourably acquitted. Denying him the appointment to the post of a Constable is like a vicarious punishment, which is not permissible in law, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is vitiated in law and liable to be set aside.
25.Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal case in which he has been honourably acquitted, there is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents or the conduct of the appellant was not up to the mark to appoint him to the post. The appellant was also among the list of the 40 selected successful candidates, who had fulfilled all the other requirements of the post. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Jagtar Singh v. CBI (1993 Supp (3) SCC 49 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 922 : (1993) 25 ATC 81) which states as under : (SCC pp. 50-51, para 4) ?4.... It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the claim of privilege by the respondents is justified or not. We also do not wish to go into the details of the investigations made regarding the antecedents and character of the appellant. We have carefully examined the material on the basis of which the respondents have come to the conclusion that the appellant is not suitable for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigations and we are of the view that the respondents are not justified in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. No reasonable persons, on the basis of the material placed before us, can come to the conclusion that the appellant's antecedents and character are such that he is unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. There has been total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondents. Only on the basis of surmises and conjectures arising out of a single incident which happened in the year 1983 it has been concluded that the appellant is not a desirable person to be appointed to government service. We are of the view that the appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to the post to which he was selected and recommended by the Union Public Service Commission.?
26.Thus, we are of the opinion that the alleged past conduct of the appellant in relation to the criminal case will not debar or disqualify him for the post of the Constable for which he was successfully selected after qualifying the written test, medical test and the interview conducted by the selection authority. Further, as stated by us earlier, there has been no concealment of any relevant fact from the respondents by the appellant. The respondents were thus not justified in denying the said post to the appellant. The conclusion arrived at by them is not cogent and lacks proper application of mind.?
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the judgement of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Kirubakar and others v. The Director General of Police and others reported in 2014 (3) CTC 218. The facts of this case as set out in the judgement clearly indicate that the petitioner was acquitted ultimately by the Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another judgment of this Court by a Division Bench in W.A(MD).No.1078 of 2016 wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:
?3. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition for a mandamus directing the appellants/respondents to consider him for appointment to the post of Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade without referring to FIR No.529 of 2013 on the file of Deevattipatti Police Station, which was subsequently closed as mistake of fact, on the ground that though he was successful in the written examination and in the physical measurement and physical endurance test, he was not selected and that on enquiry, he came to know that his candidature was rejected only because of his involvement in a criminal case. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he does not suffer from any disqualification, as there was no suppression of any fact on his part and the criminal case was closed as mistake of fact, since the Inspector of Police found the complaint as false, and that the judicial order in this regard had also become final. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties and after referring to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Act, 2013 and the Youth Brigade Rules made thereunder as well as the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 under which the police force has been reorganised, in extenso, has held that the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, etc., in respect of Tamil Nadu Police Force shall not be applicable to the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade, since the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade is neither a police force nor it forms part of the Tamil Nadu Police Force. The learned Judge also held that the respondent/writ petitioner is not guilty of suppression of material fact relating to his involvement in the criminal case, as there was no criminal case pending against him on the date of his application, since the case came to be registered only on 14.11.2013 on the complaint of his father, which admittedly, after investigation, was found to be false.?
11.The second respondent in the present case has passed the impugned order by referring to the conduct of the petitioner, as the petitioner involved himself in a criminal case that was registered against him for the offences under
Sections 341,323,324 and
307 of I.P.C. As per Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rules, 2013, the qualification for the post is prescribed. The conduct of the candidate also is a matter of concern as the requirement being a person of good character, as found in Rule 3(b) which clearly indicate that the involvement of the petitioner in criminal case is also relevant while considering the character of the candidate. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under
Sections 341,323,324 and
307 of I.P.C. As against the punishment of imprisonment for a period of two years, for the proved offence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and since the appeal was allowed on the technical ground, it cannot be treated as a honorary acquittal. It is relevant to extract paragraph 10 of the judgment in Crl.A.No. 27 of 2010:
?10.m.rh.1 jdJ rhl;rpaj;jpy; m.rh.4I 4tJ vjphp mUs;qhdg;gpufhrk; tHpkwpj;J 1tJ vjphp rpd;idah m.rh.4I jiyapYk;, nlJ fhypYk; btl;oa[k;, 2, 3 vjphpfs; joahy; cly; KGtJk; moj;jjhf rhl;rpakspj;Js;shh;. vdBt m.rh.4 xU bjspthd rhl;rpaj;ij Kd; itf;ftpy;iy vd tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;Js;sJ. m.rh.4d; rhl;rpag;go mhpthisf; bfhz;L ahh; jhf;fpaJ vdt[k;, fk;ig itj;J ahh; jhf;fpaJ vdt[k; xU bjspthd rhl;rpakspf;ftpy;iy vd Kot[ bra;Js;sJ. m.rh.4f;F jiyapy; Vw;gl;Ls;s nuz;L rpije;j fhaA;fSk;. mhpthshy; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;, fk;gpdhByBa Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vd tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; Kot[bra;Js;sJ. tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; fk;gpdhy; jhf;fp rhjhuzf; fhak; Vw;gl;ljhf Kot[ bra;J 2,3,4 vjphpfSf;F vjpuhf n.j.r.324 gphptpd;go Fw;wr;rhl;L tidahjgl;rj;jpy; n.j.r.324 gphptpd;go 2,3,4 vjphpfis Fw;wthspfs; vd Kot[ bra;J jz;lid tHA;fpa[s;sJ rl;lj;jpw;F KuzhdjhFk;, <n.j.r.324 gphptpd;go Fw;wr;rhl;L tidahky; me;jf; Fw;wr;rhl;il F.tpK.r.313 gphptpd;go vjphpfsplk; tpdthky; jPh;g;g[iu tHA;fpaJ rl;lj;jpw;F KuzhdJ vd;W fPH;f;fz;l jPh;g;ig Bkw;Bfhs; fhl;o thjk; bra;ag;gl;lJ.
2009-1 Law Weekly (Criminal) page 262 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Dr.Arijit Pasayat, J. and P.Sathasivam, J.
Asraf Ali v. State of Assam.
?Held: Object of
Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused ? Each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced ? If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it ? where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. It is now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him.
No witness has stated that on the date of occurrence the accused had caused severe injury to the deceased by assaulting him on the head from behind ? The circumstances which were relied upon by the trial Court to find the accused guilty were not specifically brought to the notice of the accused ? Therefore, in essence, his examination under
Section 313 of the Code was rendered an empty formality.?
ek; Kd;dhy; cs;s tHf;fpYk; n.j.r.323 gphptpd;go Fw;wr;rhl;L tide;J n.j.r.324 gphptpd;go jz;liz tHA;fpaJ Fwpj;J F.tp.K.r. gphpt[ 313y; vjphpfsplk; tpdttpy;iy. vdBt Bkw;fz;l jPh;g;gpd; mog;gilapy; rl;lj;jpw;F KuzhdJ vd Kot[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ.??
12.The fact leading to the involvement of petitioner in the criminal case registered under grave offences has to be considered. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner is relating to the past conduct of the appellant in relation to criminal case. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was honourably acquitted, hence, denial of appointment to the post of constable was held as impermissible in law. Even in the judgement of this Court reported in 2014 (3) CTC 218. Out of the two cases dealt with by the Learned Single Judge therein, in one case, the criminal case was based on the complaint given by the father of petitioner against the petitioner therein. After investigation, the criminal complaint was found to be false and the final report was submitted by the Investigation Officer was accepted by the Criminal Court. In that context, it was held that mere registration of the case against the petitioner therein cannot disqualify the person for being appointed as a member of Youth Brigade. A finding was also rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the candidate possessed good character. In the second case, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner therein was guilty of suppression of material fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case. The Writ Petition filed was dismissed. Hence, the said judgement of this Court does not support the case of the petitioner. The facts in the case dealt with by the Division Bench in the judgement dated 30.08.2016 in W.A.No.1078 of 2016 is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In the case before the Division Bench, the facts disclosed in the judgement indicate that the criminal case filed against the candidate was closed as mistake of fact. Since the criminal case was closed as mistake of fact, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that there was no suppression of any fact on the part of the candidate. Merely because a criminal case has been registered against the candidate, it was rightly held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that it cannot be stated that the candidate was involved in a criminal case.
13.The facts in the present case is entirely different and this Court cannot ignore the assessment of second respondent about the character of the petitioner based on the facts and details as could be derived from the materials on record. Even this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court only for some technical reason and the petitioner's involvement in the criminal case cannot be disputed. The acquittal of petitioner in the criminal case cannot be termed as a honourable acquittal. In the above circumstances, this Court find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent as this Court is of the view that the petitioner's conduct is not good and that he is not qualified in terms of Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade Rule,2013. As a result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there is no order to costs.
To
1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu uniform Service Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Li.Chengalvaraya Nayakkar Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai.