S.KIRUBABURESHWARAN vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.34565 of 2023 and
W.M.P.Nos.34480 to 34482 of 2023
S.Kirubabureshwaran
… Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison II Dept),
St.George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police
Prison & Reform Services,
Office of the DGP, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner
Office, Pantheen Road,
Egmore, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent Of Police,
Villupuram District.
… Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
rd
connection with the correspondence of 3 respondent bearing reference
No.52691/EW.1/2022 dated 09.08.2023 and quash the same and further
direct the respondent 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner (Regn.
No.1611264) for appointment as Grade-II Constable and to appoint him
in the said post.
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
For Petitioner: Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar
For Mrs.Mythili Srinivas
For Respondent(s): Mr.AR.Suresh, SGP for R1 to R4
*
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.)
Rejection order rejecting candidature of petitioner for
selection to the post of Grade-II Constable in proceedings dated
09.08.2023 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. In pursuance of Recruitment Notification issued for
selection to the post of Grade-II Constable conducted by Tamil Nadu
Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, petitioner submitted application
and participated in the process of selection. He was successful in the
written examination and physical eligibility test. During certificate
verification, Selection Committee found that petitioner involved in a
criminal case registered in Crime No.369 of 2021 under Sections 341,
294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC. At the time of application, petitioner was
charge-sheeted on 19.06.2019. Subsequently, he was acquitted in
C.C.No.21 of 2023 by Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet vide judgment
dated 25.05.2023. He was acquitted on the ground that prosecution
witnesses turned hostile.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the acquittal
of petitioner from criminal case, would reiterate that acquittal cannot be
construed as a disqualification for selection. Petitioner is an innocent
person not involved in any criminal case. Therefore, the order impugned
is liable to be set aside. Contention of petitioner is that a false criminal
case has been registered against him and he was acquitted on the
ground that witnesses turned hostile. Thus, he is eligible for selection
and appointment to the post of Grade-II Constable under the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would oppose, by stating that person involved in a criminal
case cannot claim selection as a matter of right and Selection
Committee is empowered to assess suitability of a candidate in the
context of nature of criminal case as well as involvement of a person
concerned. As per Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of the Special Rules for the
Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Services (in short "Rules for Jail
Subordinate Services"), involvement in a criminal case per se is a
disqualification and therefore, the order impugned is to be sustained.
The fact regarding involvement of petitioner in criminal case is not in
dispute. Thus, relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
5. This Court has considered rival submissions made
between parties to the present writ petition.
6. Close reading of Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail
Subordinate Services would show that “a person who is acquitted or
discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant
turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case”.
Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services states that a person has
not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification. Therefore, a
person, who is involved in a criminal case at the time of verification is not
eligible for selection. The word ‘involved’ has been defined under
Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of Rules for Jail Subordinate Services, which
amply makes clear that even if a person is acquitted on the ground that
complainant turned hostile, it can be construed as the person involved in
criminal case. Therefore, the said ground raised by petitioner is
untenable.
7. Scope of interference by Writ Court in the matter of
selection is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the case
1
of Commissioner of Police vs. Rajkumar , Apex Court considered the
issue and held as follows:
1
2021 INSC 423
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
“25…..The fact appreciation by the High Court, and the intensive
scrutiny of the evidence, in the opinion of this court to conclude that
Deepa could not have been implicated in the offence, based on
inferences drawn under Article 226 of the Constitution, is an exercise of
overreach of judicial review process.
26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the
suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence
of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public
employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as
unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of
trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual
for appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah
v. Union Public Service Commission7  held as follows:
“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of
the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the
Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the
ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules.
The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the
recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of
appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection
Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to
examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of
the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion…
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an
Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and
constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This
power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly
understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is
not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts.
One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making
their assessment and it is not subject to appeal.
Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be
held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If
this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually
amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started
sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority
over the selection.”
27. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B.S. Mahajan8  this court
held that (2008) 2 SCC 119 (1990) 1 SCC 305 “12.... it is not the
function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates.
Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided
by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
the subject. The court has no such expertise. .. in the present case the
University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected
the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In
sitting in appeal over the selec- tion so made and in setting it aside on
the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as
assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction.”
28. Again, in U nion Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya
Priya ,  it was iterated that “The question as to how the categories are
assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in
making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the
Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per
law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection
Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for
the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where
the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala
fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the
matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the
candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a
particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert
body i.e. the Selection Committee.”
29. Public service, like any other, pre-supposes that the state
employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its
service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as
qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a
candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required
of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial
review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those
norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-
discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the
autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the
process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona
fides.
30. The High Court’s approach, evident from its observations
about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the
general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or
misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such
misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the
youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion that such
generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender’s conduct,
should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain
types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating
up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of
weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the
concerned public employer, through its designated officials- more so, in
the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to
maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire
public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.
8. In the case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs.
2
Akashdeep Morya and another , Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
that in the absence of Hon’ble acquittal, the alleged involvement of an
Officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system. The
Court in judicial review is not concerned with the decision per se and
that the decision-making process is not flawed.
9. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs.
3
Rajkumar Yadav , Apex Court held as follows:
“7. The necessary conclusion from the parameters and
principles summarised above, is that whether it is a question of
recruiting a person into the service or continuing him in service or
extending an employee some service benefit, his criminal
antecedents, involvement in criminal activity, the conduct amounting
to moral turpitude, registration of a criminal case as well as nature
of his acquittal in a criminal case are all germane considerations to
be applied. The employer who would be acting through a screening
committee to sift such cases, has fairly a large realm of freedom to
act, though without becoming arbitrary.
7.1. The area of discretion vested with the screening
committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a
candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment. In a
given case where the facts are stark, mere involvement of a person
in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may become
2
2021 INSC 485
3
2026 INSC 225
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such candidate
to be offered employment. Antecedents of a candidate play an
important role in the decision-making process by the screening
committee. This dictum would operate with greater rigour when it
comes to the recruitment and appointment to the disciplined force
like police.
7.2. The position of law was highlighted again in the following
observations by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs.
Parvez Khan, ‘…it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the
police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person
of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and
integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this
category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be
presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are
likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the
police force.’
*
8. In Mehar Singh (supra) and in Parvez Khan (supra), this
court opined that the decision of the screening committee must be
taken as final unless as it is shown to be mala fide. The screening
committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed
in it and must examine the candidate with utmost care for the
candidate’s character.
9. But for the above limited considerations namely
arbitrariness, unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide
approach, the scope of judicial review on this score is extremely
limited. The courts are not expected to override the wisdom of the
employer in judging the suitability of a candidate and in considering
the relevance of the antecedents of the candidate and would not
substitute its own view.
10. Legal position ruled in the above judgments in
unequivocal terms reiterate that assessment of suitability and eligibility
vest with the domain expert, i.e., Selection Committee. Scope of judicial
interference in this area is undoubtedly limited and any such intervention
may result in unsettling the selection. Substituting the opinion of
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
Selection Committee by High Court is unwarranted and not desirable.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner is
involved in criminal case in the context of Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of
Rules for Jail Subordinate Services. Invoking the said Rule, he was not
selected and impugned order came to be passed. Thus, this Court does
not find any infirmity in respect of decision taken by Selection
Committee, since principles as contemplated had been followed for
arriving at a decision.

Consequently, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.)
27-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AR
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )

2026:MHC:3586
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
AR
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home (Prison II Dept.),
St.George Fort, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police
Prison & Reform Services,
Office of the DGP, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner Office,
Pantheen Road,
Egmore, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent Of Police,
Villupuram District.
W.P.No.34565 of 2023
2/2
27-08-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 03:36:09 pm )