Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Grade II Police Constable recruited for the year 2009. According to the petitioner, he had excellent marks in the examination. But, despite his being higher marks, he was not selected. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to give appointment for the post of Grade II Police Constable. 2. When the matter came up on 8.4.2010, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a copy of the verification roll filled up by the petitioner at the time of the selection. As against the column numbers, the petitioner has given the following answers: 15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal cases as defendant : Tamil 16. Have you ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment : Tamil 18. Are there any Civil or criminal cases pending against you? If so details : Tamil This attestation form was sent on 21.1.2010. But, however, on verification, the respondents have found that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Puducherry in C.C. No.679 of 2006 under section 304(A) of IPC. It was also stated that while filling up the verification form, the petitioner did not disclose these facts as set above. Therefore, in the light of the criminal back ground and his not informing the Department and suppressing the vital information, he was denied the grant of employment. 3. A similar issue came to be considered by a full Bench judgment of this Court in Manikandan and others vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and others reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 , dated 28.2.2008, the Full Bench confirmed the order of the learned Judge in upholding the proviso introduced to Rule 14(b) of the above Rules, wherein even an acquittal on technical grounds can be considered as having criminal background and it is open to the authorities to deny employment under such circumstances. 4. Non-mentioning in the attestation form regarding the involvement in the criminal case and indicating that he was never faced with criminal case, is a very serious blunder committed by the petitioner. A similar question came up for consideration in R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 660 . 4. Non-mentioning in the attestation form regarding the involvement in the criminal case and indicating that he was never faced with criminal case, is a very serious blunder committed by the petitioner. A similar question came up for consideration in R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 660 . In that judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows: "10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 11. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar wherein it was categorically held: (SCC p. 606, para 3) “3. … The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.” 12. Mr Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.” 12. Mr Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. The said decision has been rendered, as would be evident from the judgment itself, on special facts and circumstances of the said case and cannot be treated to be a binding precedent. 13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise. Thus the above latest decision of the Apex Court has cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue. Therefore, we hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the application form is filled up, is fatal. His subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. 5. In the light of the above, no case is made out. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.