Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records relating to the proceedings in No.Rc.No.104185/Rect.3/2004 dated 26.10.2004 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Constable with all monetary benefits.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the respondent dated 26.10.2004 and direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Constable with all monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable and attended physical and written test and having come out successful, he was waiting for appointment. The impugned order was passed by the respondent stating that the petitioner's character and antecedence are not found satisfactory by the appointing authority and therefore, the petitioner's candidature for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable was not considered and rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner involved in a petty case under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act and he pleaded guilty while he was a minor and he was released on admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offences Act. The petitioner after passing Plus Two examination, completed B.A., degree course in Vivekananda College, Agasteeswaram, Kanniyakumari District and during the said course of study, his conduct and character were assessed by the Principal of the College who issued the certificate stating that the petitioner's conduct and character are good. The said certificate finds a place in page 2 of the typed set and the said certificate is dated 23.05.2003. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no material available to come to the conclusion by the respondent that the petitioner's conduct and character are not satisfactory except on the admonition in respect of the criminal case registered under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act and the learned Magistrate released the petitioner under section 3 of the P.O.Act. Section 12 of the P.O.Act clearly states that there is no disqualification attaching to conviction under section 3 of the P.O.Act. For proper appreciation, section 12 of the P.O.Act is extracted herein: "12. Section 12 of the P.O.Act clearly states that there is no disqualification attaching to conviction under section 3 of the P.O.Act. For proper appreciation, section 12 of the P.O.Act is extracted herein: "12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction"- Notwithstanding anything contended in any law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law, provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005(1) CTC 429 (P. Virabhagu Vs. Union of India rep. by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-1 and others) and stated that the non disclosure of conviction cannot be a bar for getting appointment particularly, when the offence is a very minor offence. In the said Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the similar order passed, was set aside and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel also cited a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 (1) SCC 246 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another Vs. Dahval Singh) to show that mere involvement in a criminal case is not a bar for getting appointment. Yet another Judgment of a Division Bench made in W.P.Nos.2265 & 2266 of 2002 dated 22.06.2005 was produced before me which confirmed the order of the State Administrative Tribunal quashing the similar order of rejecting the appointment on the ground that the petitioner's antecedence and character are not satisfactory. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, section 12 of the P.O.Act clearly states that release of the person under section 3 of the P.O.Act is not a bar for getting Government appointment. The offence alleged against the petitioner in criminal case, being a petty offence, the Judgment of the Division Bench above referred, clearly applies to the facts of this case. 8. The offence alleged against the petitioner in criminal case, being a petty offence, the Judgment of the Division Bench above referred, clearly applies to the facts of this case. 8. Relying on the above cited Judgments, I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the respondent is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner if there is no other impediment. The orders to that effect shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.