Acquittal due to hostile witnesses remains disqualifying criminal involvement for police recruitment.

The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Constable pursuant to a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. He cleared the written examination and physical eligibility test.

During certificate verification, the Selection Committee found that he had been involved in Crime No.369 of 2021 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC; the charge-sheet had been filed on 19.06.2019. Although he was subsequently acquitted in C.C.No.21 of 2023 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet, on 25.05.2023, the acquittal was based on the prosecution witnesses turning hostile. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected by proceedings dated 09.08.2023, which he challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking consideration and appointment as Grade-II Constable.

Whether the petitioner’s acquittal from the criminal case, on account of prosecution witnesses turning hostile, removed the disqualification arising from his prior involvement in the case under Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Services.

Whether the Selection Committee’s rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was illegal or liable to be interfered with in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Rule 2(f) and Explanation 1 to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Services, under which a candidate must not have been involved in any criminal case before police verification, and a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or because the complainant or prosecution witnesses turned hostile is nevertheless treated as a person involved in a criminal case.

The Court further relied on Commissioner of Police v. Rajkumar, 2021 INSC 423, and the principles in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, holding that courts cannot sit as appellate authorities over the suitability assessment of expert selection bodies, absent mala fides, arbitrariness, illegality or violation of statutory rules.

It also relied on Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya, 2021 INSC 485, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rajkumar Yadav, 2026 INSC 225, which recognise that criminal antecedents, the nature of acquittal and involvement in criminal activity are relevant to suitability, particularly for disciplined forces such as the police, and that judicial review in such matters is extremely limited.

The Court held that the petitioner’s acquittal did not constitute an honourable or complete exoneration because it resulted from the prosecution witnesses turning hostile. Under Explanation 1 to Rule 2(f), such an acquittal continued to qualify as involvement in a criminal case, rendering the petitioner ineligible at the relevant stage of verification.

Since the petitioner’s involvement was undisputed and the Selection Committee had applied the governing rule, the Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or procedural infirmity in the rejection. The Court emphasised that suitability for appointment to a police or other disciplined force falls primarily within the expertise and discretion of the Selection Committee, and that the High Court could not substitute its own assessment merely because the petitioner had later been acquitted.

The writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 09.08.2023 was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.