Madras High Court: In a writ petition against the order passed by Superintendent of Police and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training for the post of Grade II Police Constables (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force, Jail Warder and Firemen) with effect from the date of original selection, L. Victoria Gowri, J. has quashed the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police. Further, it directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training to the post of Grade-II Police Constable.
Background:
On 16-07-2022, the petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Constable. He participated in the written examination on 27-11-2022 and he got qualified in the same. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (‘TNUSRB’) called the petitioner for physical efficiency test on 07-02-2023. He scored 65 out of 70 marks in the written examination and 24 out of 24 marks in the physical efficiency test. Meanwhile, during April 2023, he was called for medical examination. Meanwhile, on 16-05-2023, the Superintendent of Police passed the impugned order mentioning that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was dropped for further action and on that basis, his selection was rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
Analysis:
The Court noted that while the petitioner was a student, he participated in the protest organized by fellow students protesting against the NEET examination. Further, it said that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right which is available to each and every citizen of this Country and for the purpose of participating in the said protest, the said criminal case was filed.
The Court took note of the order dated 01-02-2022, passed in a case filed by a co-accused, and said that the Single Judge of this Court has rightly observed that the alleged accused persons in the said crime did not indulge in any act of violence and on the death of a student, the whole issue went emotional across the State. Bound by the emotional outrage, the entire student community across the State indulged in protest.
Further, it said that without considering the fact that the said criminal case has already been quashed and consequently, the case was also referred on the basis of the High Court order, the appointing authorities, without application of mind, rejected the candidature of the petitioner stating that the persons who are acquitted under benefit of doubt or hostility of complaint will be treated as involved in criminal case and will not be considered for appointment as per Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules or Rule 13 of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.
However, the Court said that the petitioner was neither acquitted on the benefit of doubt or hostility of the complainant, but the crime was registered against him in an earlier stage and never culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet and it was closed on the basis of the High Court order, where the High Court has already held that it was only a protest and it cannot have any criminal implication.
As per the Court the respondent authorities failed to consider the fact that there are no other criminal antecedents as against the petitioner and this particular crime has nothing to do with any criminal implication as far as the petitioner is concerned and he had only exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students and it will not have any implication as to the nature of the job for which he has applied.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police. Further, it directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner and send him for training to the post of Grade-II Police Constable.
[Arunkanth v. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5456, Order dated 01-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate R. Karunanidhi;
For Respondents: Additional Advocate General P. Veera Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader N. Muthuvijayan.
