Madras HC directed authorities to appoint candidate as police constable who was denied job over a criminal case

In a writ petition challenging the order issued by the Superintendent of Police, the Madras High Court has declared the order illegal and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner for the position of Grade-II Police Constable. The court also instructed that the petitioner should be sent for training.

Background:

On July 16, 2022, the petitioner applied for the position of Grade-II Constable and successfully passed the written examination held on November 27, 2022. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) summoned the petitioner for a physical efficiency test on February 7, 2023. The petitioner obtained a score of 65 out of 70 marks in the written examination and 24 out of 24 marks in the physical efficiency test. In April 2023, the petitioner underwent a medical examination. However, on May 16, 2023, the Superintendent of Police issued an order rejecting the petitioner’s selection on the basis that he was involved in a criminal case that had been dropped for further action. Disputing this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

Analysis:

The Court observed that during the petitioner’s time as a student, he participated in a protest organized by fellow students against the NEET examination. The Court emphasized that the right to protest for a common cause is a fundamental right available to every citizen of the country and that the criminal case against the petitioner was filed solely because of his participation in the protest.

The Court referred to an order dated February 1, 2022, issued in a case filed by a co-accused. It concurred with the Single Judge of the Court who correctly noted that the alleged accused persons in that case did not engage in any acts of violence. The Court acknowledged that the student community across the State became emotionally charged after a student’s death, leading to widespread protests.

Furthermore, the Court criticized the appointing authorities for rejecting the petitioner’s candidature without considering the fact that the criminal case had already been quashed and closed based on a previous High Court order. The authorities failed to apply their minds and cited Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules or Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, which state that individuals acquitted on the basis of doubt or complaint hostility would be deemed involved in a criminal case and not eligible for appointment.

However, the Court clarified that the petitioner was neither acquitted on the basis of doubt nor complaint hostility. Although a crime was registered against him at an earlier stage, it did not progress to the filing of a charge-sheet and was closed based on the High Court’s order, which determined that it was merely a protest without any criminal implications.

The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to consider that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents and that the specific crime had no relevance to his suitability for the job. The petitioner had merely exercised his fundamental right to protest by participating in the protest organized by his fellow students, and it should not impact the nature of the job he had applied for.

Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order issued by the Superintendent of Police and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner, enabling him to undergo training for the position of Grade-II Police Constable.

\[Arunkanth v. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, W.P.(MD) No. 12980 of 2023, Order dated August 1, 2023\]

Reference: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/08/18/madras-hc-directs-authorities-appoint-candidate-police-constable-denied-job-over-criminal-case/amp/

Name- Ritika Keshari, College – Shambhunath Institute of Law, Semester – 2^nd semester as a intern at Legal Vidhiya 

Admin