Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the Respondent dated 02.02.2004 made in Proceedings No.Rc.080992/Appointment 3/2003 and directing the Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable based on his application. 2. Petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable Grade-II for the year 2003 and his registration number is 2801088. Petitioner cleared written test and he was declared as passed. On the basis of written test, Petitioner was asked to appear for physical fitness and Petitioner came up successful in medical fitness also. But the Petitioner was not appointed. By the impugned Proceedings dated 02.02.2004, Petitioner was informed that he was involved in Panankudi Police Station Cr.No.11/1998 under Sec.323 and 324 IPC and that he was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt and Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (for short Rules) would be applicable and therefore, he was not appointed. 3. Respondent filed counter stating that as per Rule 14(b), no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. A person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt due to the fact that complainant turned hostile shall be treated as involved in a criminal case. It is further averred that since the Petitioner was involved in Cr.No.11/1998, he was informed that his candidature was rejected. 4. Placing reliance upon 2005 (1) CTC 429 (P. Virabhagu v. Union of India) and unreported decision in W.P.No.6536/2006, Mr. R. Thamodaran, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there was no material to prove that Petitioner was involved in any criminal case and criminal case in Cr.No.11/98 of Panankudi P.S. ended in acquittal and therefore, Rule 14(b) is not applicable. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that amendment to Rules were introduced in G.O.(Ms.) No.101, Home (Police-IX) Department, dated 30.01.2003 and therefore, the selection process initiated before the said date would not be affected by the said amendment and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate (Writs) would submit that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as involved in a criminal case. 5. Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate (Writs) would submit that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as involved in a criminal case. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that Petitioner was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt was treated as involved in a criminal case and applying Rule 14(b), his candidature was rightly rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly contended that Rule 14(b) is not applicable. Amendment to Rules were introduced only on 30.1.2003 in G.O.(Ms.) No.101, Home (Police-IX) Department and therefore, selection process is not influenced by the said amendment as the selection process started much earlier. This contention does not merit acceptance. Recruitment for the post of Gr.II men Police Constable was for the year 2001 – 2003. During the selection process, amendment came into force. In the call letter sent to the Petitioner, he was directed to appear for physical fitness test on 16.05.2003. Amendment having come to effect during the process of selection, Petitioner cannot contend that Rule 14(b) is not applicable. 7. Conceededly, Petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.11/1998 under Sec.323 and 324 IPC. By perusal of the Judgment in C.C.No.182/1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur, it is seen that Petitioner was acquitted only giving him benefit of doubt. As per Explanation to Rule 14(b) "a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or that the complainant and other witnesses turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. Rule 14 (b) and Explanation thereon reads thus:- "14(b). ..... (iv) That he has not involved in any Criminal Case before police verification. Explanation (1): 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 person involved in a Criminal Case. Explanation (2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police Verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a Criminal Case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment." Evidently, Petitioner having been acquitted on benefit of doubt would necessarily fall within the ambit of Explanation. 8. 8. The vires of Rule 14(b) came up for consideration, in 2008 (2) CTC 97 (Manikandan and others v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai2 and others). In the said case, reference was made to the Full Bench on the issue Whether the acquittal or discharge of a person in a criminal case on benefit of doubt would amount to a stigma on the file of a person so as to make him ineligible as per Rule 14(b), Explanation-1 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Rules. Referring to various decisions and observing that a person acquitted of an offence on benefit of doubt or discharged can still be considered as disqualified for selection to Police Service and upholding the validity of Rule 14(b), Full Bench has held as under:- "But the concept of double jeopardy, to some extent, is allergic to service law. In as many cases as one can think of, the Supreme Court has made it clear (i) that the imposition of a punishment and the denial of promotion did not amount to double jeopardy and (ii) that the conviction by a Criminal Court and the disciplinary proceedings initiated either on the basis of conduct which led to the conviction or on pure questions of misconduct, did not amount to double jeopardy. Since the concept of "acquittal is an acquittal", is an off shoot of the principle of double jeopardy underlying Section 300(1) of the Code, it cannot be imported into service law, where the principle of double jeopardy itself is looked down upon. Therefore, the Explanation 1 to Rule 14(b) of the impugned Rules, treating a person acquitted on benefit of doubt, as a person involved in a criminal case, is only in tune with well settled principles applicable to Service jurisprudence. A person discharged does not even have protection under Section 300 of the Code and hence such a person cannot assail the Explanation 1 to the impugned Rule 14(b). A person discharged does not even have protection under Section 300 of the Code and hence such a person cannot assail the Explanation 1 to the impugned Rule 14(b). Therefore, we hold, in answer to the first issue referred to the Full Bench, that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a Criminal Case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified." 9. In the case before Full Bench, Writ Petitioners were involved in criminal cases either prior to the selection process or during the course of selection process. Observing that denial of appointment is not violative of fundamental rights, Full Bench has further held as under:- "In any event, it is well settled that provisional selection does not confer an automatic right to appointment. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, crossed the stages of physical fitness test, written test, interview and medical test in the entire process of selection. In the last lap of selection, police verification of their character and antecedents took place. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions had adverse reports in the last lap and hence, the Appointing Authority did not issue orders of appointment. The stage at which the petitioners were shown the red card by the referee, is not the stage at which the petitioners had acquired an inviolable right to be appointed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot make out a grievance, especially when their involvement in the Criminal Cases either prior to the date of commencement of selection or during the course of selection process, is not disputed." 10. Petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.182/1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur only giving him benefit of doubt. Decision of the Full Bench is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, rejection of candidature applying Rule 14(b) cannot successfully be challenged and this Writ Petition is bound to fail. 11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed.