Date:29/11/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/11/29/stories/2008112956760500.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

State can set its own standards in recruitment of personnel, says Madras High Court

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Citing an order of its Full Bench, the Madras High Court on Friday said the State being an employer can set its own standards in recruitment of its personnel. In the case of uniformed services, it can apply rigorous standards so that all and sundry will not get into the force.

Justice K.Chandru was dismissing petitions by two brothers, G.Ganesan and G.Prabhu seeking to quash an order of the Director-General of Police dated December 31, 2007 and consequently appoint them as Sub-Inspectors of Police, and seeking to declare the amendment in Clause 2 Explanation (2) made in a government order of January 2003 as illegal.

In December last year, the petitioners were informed by the DGP that though they were selected as SIs in 2006, on verification of their character and antecedents it was found they were involved in a criminal case in Valandor police station and hence they would not be appointed.

The portion of Explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules said a person who was honourably acquitted, should get his chance only in the next recruitment.

The petitioners said when they participated in the selection process, the Sessions Court had acquitted them by granting them benefit of doubt.

Therefore they were non-suited as per the rules. A subsequent modification of the trial court’s order made by the High Court this year declaring that the two were honourably acquitted should date back to the original selection process. Hence, the two should be appointed.

Mr.Justice Chandru said the DGP’s impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity. On the selection date, the trial court in April 2004 had only granted the benefit of doubt while acquitting the petitioners.

Therefore, the authorities were correct in stating that though the petitioners’ names were in the selection list, their antecedents showed their involvement in a criminal case. Only thereafter they moved the court for expunging the remarks from the trial court order by ingeniously filing a petition before the High Court.

It was highly doubtful whether the High Court was empowered in granting such a declaratory relief. As per the Cr.P.C., there was no distinction between “honourable acquittal” and “acquittal on benefit of doubt”. Such distinctions had been brought only in Service Law through court judgments.

The petitioners’ case did not come within Explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) because their acquittal by the criminal court at the time of verification was not honourable. Therefore, the question of their challenging the vires of the explanation did not arise, Mr.Justice Chandru said.