IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.34463 of 2006 D.Subramani .. Petitioner Vs. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.4, 9th Cross Street., Indira Nagar, Adyar Post, Madras-600 020. .. Respondent This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to set aside the order of the respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.D2/4886/97, dated 22.12.1997 and consequently, to direct the respondent to create one super numerical post of Fire Service Man and to appoint the applicant in the said post with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Suresh Viswanath For Respondent : Mr.P.Gurunathan, GA - - - - ORDER
The petitioner has filed O.A.No.1476 of 1998, seeking to challenge the order of the respondent, dated 22.12.1997. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.34463 of 2006. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 4.11.98.
2.The grievance of the petitioner was the petitioner had applied for the post of Fire Service Man. Subsequently, on being successful in the physical efficiency test, written test, oral interview and medical examination, the petitioner was waiting for an appointment order. When the antecedent and character verification was done, it was found that the petitioner had a criminal case pending against him filed under Section 427 IPC. The petitioner claims that he was subsequently acquitted by the criminal court on 30.1.96. When persons, who were selected along with the petitioner, were given appointment orders, he was not given the same. Therefore, he sent a representation, dated 26.11.96 seeking for the posting order. He had also stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and by his sheer endurance and competency, he got selected in the test.
3.In response to the petitioner’s requisition, the petitioner was informed by an impugned order, dated 22.12.97 that he was not selected for giving the posting order. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the original application. Even though the selection was for the year 1995, the petitioner chose to move the Tribunal only during the year 1998. He has not sufficiently explained for the delay in moving the court.
4.In response to the petitioner’s allegation, In paras 3 and 4 of the reply affidavit, it was replied as follows:
“3.The Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board had conducted recruitment for the post of Firemen in the year 1994-95. The applicant is one among the candidates appeared for the selection. The applicant herein though a qualified candidate, it was reported in the police verification report that a criminal case was pending against him. Further the applicant herein had suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case in the verification roll statement.
4.Further, it is submitted that the selection for the Firemen post was made during 1994-95 and all the posts in that selection were filled and the entire selection was over. As the applicant having inactive all these years have now approached this Hon’ble Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. Hence, this application is highly time barred one. The ref.No.D2/4886/97 dated 22.12.1997 quoted by the applicant is only a memorandum and not an order as contended by the applicant and it was sent to him in response to his petition for his non-selection. However, it was a clerical mistake in informing the reason for his non-selection. It is submitted that on the score of his adverse remarks in police verification report, he was not selected.”
5.The petitioner cannot contend that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case or he was found innocent by the criminal court. The question here is whether he had disclosed the pendency of the criminal case at the time when he made declaration in the application form. It is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police reported in (2008) 1 SCC 660 in this regard. Paras 10 to 13 from the said judgment may be usefully reproduced below:
“10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.
11. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar wherein it was categorically held: (SCC p.606, para 3)
3. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.
12. Mr Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. The said decision has been rendered, as would be evident from the judgment itself, on special facts and circumstances of the said case and cannot be treated to be a binding precedent.
13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.”
6.In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
vvk
To
The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
No.4, 9th Cross Street.,
Indira Nagar,
Adyar Post,
Madras 600 020