Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Grade II Police Constable for which recruitments were taken place during the year 2009. The petitioner obtained 57 marks in the written test and 15 marks in the physical examination and his total was 73 marks. Despite the fact that the petitioner got a higher mark, he was not selected. Whereas, he found that the persons with lesser mark were sent for training. The petitioner was not informed as to why he was not selected. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that a false complaint was given against the petitioner in Cuddalore-New Town Police Station. The police registered a criminal case in Crime No.455 of 2009. Subsequently, the case was tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore on 12.1.2010. Therefore, he claimed that there was no impediment for his appointment to Grade II Police Constable. Even though he has sent a representation dated 25.3.2010, the same was not disposed of, which forced him to file the present Writ Petition. 3. Notice was given to the learned Additional Government Pleader to inform this Court the circumstances under which the petitioner was not given the employment. 4. It is stated that the petitioner was informed by a letter dated 6.4.2010 the reasons for his being not selected by the Director General of Police. The reason found in the communication was that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and his acquittal was based upon the benefit of doubt. He was released under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Besides the technical acquittal obtained by the petitioner at the time of filling up an attestation form, the petitioner has against Column Nos.15, 16 and 18, had given as nil, though the columns required him to furnish the information regarding his involvement in criminal case. Therefore, it was stated that in view of the Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner cannot be given employment. 5. The first contention of the petitioner is that he was acquitted by the criminal court and therefore there is no impediment for his employment. Therefore, it was stated that in view of the Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the petitioner cannot be given employment. 5. The first contention of the petitioner is that he was acquitted by the criminal court and therefore there is no impediment for his employment. 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. 6. The second circumstance is the non-mentioning in the attestation form regarding the involvement in the criminal case and indicating that he was never faced with criminal case, which 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. 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 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. 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. 7. In the light of the above, no case is made out. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.