Keywords: Madras High Court, Police constable, Criminal Charge, Employment, Denial.
In response to a writ suit contesting the Superintendent of Police’s decision, the Madras High Court ruled that the order was invalid and ordered the defendants to appoint the petitioner as a Grade-II Police Constable. Additionally, the court ordered that the petitioner be sent for training.
The petitioner submitted an application on July 16, 2022, for the position of Grade-II Constable, and on November 27, 2022, he or she was successful in passing the written test. The petitioner was then called by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) for a physical efficiency test on February 7, 2023. The petitioner scored 24 out of 24 on the physical efficiency test and 65 out of 70 on the writing examination. The petitioner had a physical test in April 2023. On May 16, 2023, the Superintendent of Police, on the grounds that the petitioner was a party to a criminal case that had been dismissed for further action, issued an order refusing the petitioner’s appointment. The petitioner submitted a writ petition against this ruling.
The petitioner took part in a student-organized demonstration against the NEET exam when he was still a student, the Court noted. The petitioner was the only reason a criminal case was brought against him; the court emphasized that everyone in the nation has the fundamental right to demonstrate for a cause they believe in.
The Court cited a February 1, 2022 order made in a lawsuit brought by a co-accused. It agreed with the court’s single judge, who rightly highlighted that the claimed accused parties, in that case, didn’t commit any violent activities. The Court accepted that after a student died, the student community across the State experienced an emotional upheaval that sparked massive protests.
In addition, the Court chastised the hiring authorities for rejecting the petitioner’s application without taking into account the fact that the criminal matter had previously been dismissed and closed in accordance with an earlier High Court judgment. The authorities refused to use their common sense 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 people who have been exonerated due to suspicion or hostility will be regarded as having been involved in a criminal case and will not be qualified for appointment.
The Court made it clear that the petitioner was neither cleared on the grounds of uncertainty nor excused because of animosity. Even though a crime was initially reported against him, the High Court’s ruling that it was just a protest with no criminal consequences led to the case being dropped without a charge sheet being filed.
The Court emphasized that the authorities neglected to take into account that the petitioner had no prior criminal history and that the particular crime had no bearing on whether he was qualified for the position. The petitioner should not be penalized for applying for a job because he just exercised his fundamental right to protest by taking part in the demonstration planned by his fellow students.
In order to allow the petitioner to get the necessary training for the position of Grade-II Police Constable, the Court nullified the impugned order made by the Superintendent of Police and ordered the defendants to issue an appointment order to him.
Written by G. Nikitha, College name – KL UNIVERSITY, Semester- 9th Semester, Legal Journalist intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments