Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not preclude rejection from police recruitment for criminal antecedents.

The appellants participated in the 2017 recruitment process for Grade-II Police Constable conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. They cleared the written examination, physical test and medical examination and were provisionally selected.

During certificate and antecedent verification, it was found that they had been involved in Crime No.184 of 2014 for offences under Sections 294(b), 452, 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Although they were acquitted in C.C. No.24 of 2016, the acquittal followed the de facto complainant turning hostile.

The Selection Committee consequently rejected their candidature under Rule 13(e) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and on the ground that their antecedents and conduct were unsuitable.

The appellants initially challenged the rejection order dated 9 October 2017, but withdrew their writ petitions in 2018 and later filed fresh writ petitions after obtaining liberty. The Single Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground that the recruitment related to 2017 and that, after a lapse of seven years, the candidature could not be considered. The appellants thereafter preferred the present writ appeals.

1. Whether the appellants’ involvement in a criminal case, ending in an acquittal because the de facto complainant turned hostile, rendered them ineligible under Rule 13(e) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service.

2. Whether the subsequent characterization of the acquittal as an “honourable acquittal” could invalidate the Selection Committee’s decision made during the 2017 recruitment process.

3. Whether the High Court, in exercise of judicial review, could substitute its assessment for that of the Selection Committee regarding the appellants’ suitability, antecedents and conduct for appointment to the police service.

4. Whether the delay in seeking relief and the passage of time from the 2017 recruitment justified dismissal of the appellants’ claims.

The Court applied Rule 13(e) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, which requires that a candidate must not have been involved in any criminal case before police verification; its Explanation treats a person acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt, or because the complainant turned hostile, as a person involved in a criminal case.

The Court further applied the settled principles that suitability and eligibility for appointment to uniformed services primarily fall within the domain of the Selection Committee; suppression of material facts may justify rejection; and judicial review is limited to examining illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or an irrational decision.

Relying on Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court recognized the importance of truthful disclosure and antecedent verification in uniformed services.

Relying on Commissioner of Police v. Rajkumar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rajkumar Yadav, the Court held that courts cannot reassess a candidate’s suitability or substitute their own view for that of the screening authority, particularly in police recruitment, unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide or otherwise legally flawed.

The Court distinguished Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that its exceptional approach depended on the peculiar facts and could not be uniformly applied.

The Court held that the appellants’ involvement in the criminal case was undisputed and that, at the relevant stage of certificate verification, the case had ended in an acquittal attributable to the complainant turning hostile. Under Rule 13(e) and its Explanation, that circumstance continued to constitute involvement in a criminal case.

The later order describing the acquittal as “honourable,” passed in 2019 after completion of the selection process, could not retrospectively invalidate the Selection Committee’s assessment as it stood in 2017.

Further, the Committee had not relied merely on the registration of the case; it had also assessed the appellants’ antecedents and conduct and found them unsuitable for appointment to a disciplined police force.

Since no mala fides, patent illegality, arbitrariness or perversity was established, judicial review could not extend to re-appreciating the appellants’ suitability. The Court also noted that the prolonged delay and the passage of time from the 2017 recruitment made it impracticable to grant the requested appointment-related relief.

The Selection Committee’s assessment of their antecedents and suitability was neither illegal nor arbitrary and was not open to substitution by the Court under Article 226.

The common order dismissing WP Nos. 23300 and 23499 of 2023 was upheld, and WA Nos. 1455 and 1457 of 2024 were dismissed without costs.