K. MAYAKANNAN Vs. THE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petitioner was one of the candidates, who took part in the recruitment process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for the post of Grade-II Police Constables/Grade-II Jail Warders/Fireman for the year 2017. The writ petitioner was successful in the selection process. But, he was denied appointment by invoking Rule 14(b)(ii)and (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) This writ petition was taken up for consideration along with a batch of more than 100 writ petitions. In some cases, the candidates had disclosed the registration of criminal cases against them and also the final outcome while submitting the application form itself. In some cases, the disclosure was made at the time of verification. But, in a large number of cases, there was no disclosure at all and the factum of involvement in the criminal cases came to light only during the verification of the antecedents of the candidates. In all the cases, the criminal cases got concluded in favour of the candidates. In some cases, acquittal was made on account of the witnesses having turned hostile. In some cases, the matters were compromised. In some cases, this Court had quashed the prosecution by exercising the inherent jurisdiction available under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In few other cases, the police themselves had dropped further action or closed the cases as 'Mistake of Fact'. In some cases, the investigating officer had himself deleted the names of the candidates in final report. The approach to be adopted by the appointing authority in such cases was the subject matter of more than one decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in 2015 (2) SCC 377 - Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh , took the view that a person, who was honourably acquitted ought not to be deprived of being appointed to a post in public employment. Of course, in the said case, the candidate concerned had made a fair and frank disclosure of his involvement. The matter was again taken up by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (8) SCC 471 - Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others . The concluding paragraphs 34 to 38.11 are particularly relevant, which read as under: