- (1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition praying to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na. Ka. No. 080992/rect/3/2003, dated 3. 1. 2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Gr. II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
(2.) THE petitioner passed S. S. L. C. and belonged to M. B. C. Community. THE petitioner appeared for police constable Grade II recruitment selection and he was given the application Number 2303287/10. He appeared for physical efficiency tests and came out successfully and thereafter he attended the written tests and he also came out successfully in the written tests. THE petitioner was therefore provisionally selected for appointment to the post of gr. II Police Constable and communication to that effect was issued to him on 27. 2. 2003. The petitioner was further directed to appear along with all testimonials on 23. 8. 2003 in the District Police office, Virudhunagar and the petitioner appeared and submitted all the documents. The petitioner also appeared for medical fitness test and also claims to have come out successfully. The petitioner was directed to submit a statement with regard to his antecedents. The petitioner specifically stated that there was no criminal case pending against him and further stated that there is a difference of opinion with his neighbours and a false criminal case was registered against the petitioner along with others at the instigation of his neighbours for an offence under Section 509 I. P. C. in Cr. No. 217 of 2000 at Sattur Police Station, virudhunagar District. The petitioner further states that the said case was taken on file in S. T. C. No. 4094 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, rajapalayam and by an order dated 3. 11. 2000 , he was released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. According to the petitioner, releasing him under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act is not a disqualification for his appointment in Government Service under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act. However, the first respondent issued the impugned order on 3. 1. 2004 stating that since the petitioner was released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act in S. T. C. No. 4094 Of 2000 on 3. 11. 2000, he is not fit to be appointed as Gr. II Police Constable as per Rules 14 (b) of tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner having been released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders act, it is not a disqualification for his appointment in Police Department. Learned counsel also stated that in the Judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (4) C. T. C. 409 (P. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. - JOINT REGISTRAR of CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TIRUCHIRAPALLI REGION, TRICHIRAPALLI AND ANOTHER), this Court considered the right in respect of a person, who was convicted under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads thus:- "removal of disqualification attaching to conviction Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction or an offence under such law. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person, who, after his release under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence. " ; Since the Section 12 itself says that the person released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act is not a disqualification, this Court in the above cited decision held that dismissal of the petitioner in the said case is not sustainable and directed the department to re-instate with all service benefits without salary and other mandatory benefits. This Court, in the said judgment, has relied upon several decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1975 S. C. C. 2216 (DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL offer -Vs.- T. R. CHALLAPPAN), 1981 S. C. C. Criminal 637 (AITHA CHANDER RAO -Vs.-STATE OF A. P.) etc. In view of the settled position of law, the impugned order is unsustainable and the first respondent is directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Gr. II Police Constable if there is no other impediment in appointing the petitioner. The first respondent is directed to pass orders within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. . ;