JUDGMENT :- The petitioner passed S.S.L.C.Examination during the year 1996. He discontinued his Higher Secondary Course in the year 1998 due to the poor economic condition of his family. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community. After, he discontinued his studies, he worked in private shops. He made an application before the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for selection to the post of Police Constable Grade-II. He was called for physical fitness test on 2.7.2000. Accordingly, he appeared for the Test and found fit and he was successful in the same. Thereafter, he was asked to attend the written test on 02.08.2000. He appeared in the written test and was declared pass in the written examination. He was called to attend the interview on 11.2.2000. The results of the candidates selected in the interview was published in the newspaper on 20.09.2001. The petitioner was one of the successful candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter directing him to attend the medical fitness test. He attended the medical fitness test on 29.09.2001 and on 23.10.2001. The petitioner was asked to fill up a verification Roll furnished by the respondents. He filled up the verification Roll and submitted to the authorities on 31.10.2001. While the selected candidates called to attend training, the petitioner did not receive any intimation about the training. He made a detailed representation on 28.02.2002 requesting to appoint him as Police Constable Grade II and send him for training. While so, the petitioner was issued with the impugned order dated 12.03.2002, passed by the third respondent, stating that the petitioner gave a false information in Column No.15 of the Verification Roll and he suppressed the fact of pendency of F.I.R. in Crime No.118/2001 on the file of Setthoor Police station, under Section 147, 148 and 427 I.P.C. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was removed from the F.I.R. later. Hence, his application for appointment was rejected to the post of Police Constable- Grade-II. Thereafter, he filed O.A.No.2257 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, to quash the above said order dated 12.03.2002 of the third respondent and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to give appointment to the petitioner for the post of Police Constable (Grade II) with effect from the date on which his batchmates came to be appointed with all consequential service and monetary benefits, and continuity of service. 2. 2. While admitting the Original Application, the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, directed the third respondent to send the petitioner for training. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations made in the O.A. It is stated that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact about the pendency of Criminal case in F.I.R.118/2001 on the file of Setthoor Police station. In the enquiry, it was found that his character and antecedent was not good. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade-II. The respondents have sought for dismissal of Original Application. 4. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, O.A.No.2257 of 2002 was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.5877 of 2007. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner appeared for the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 1999-2000. He was fit in the endurance test, written test and interview and he was selected provisionally. It is stated that the selection was subject to the verification of character and antecedent by the local police. The relevant passage in the counter affidavit of the respondent in this behalf is extracted hereunder:- "The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Service in the year 1989-90 with roll No.65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally; his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police." 7. Though he was provisionally selected, he was not sent for training. When he made a representation on 28.02.2002, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2002 rejecting his application. The impugned order dated 12.03.2002 is as follows:- “Tamil” The only reason given in the impugned order is that he suppressed the fact in Column 15 of the verification roll about his involvement in Criminal case in Crime 118/2001 on the file of Setthoor Police Station. 8. The Police Verification Report is enclosed in the Typedset of papers filed by the respondents. Column 15 of the Verification Report is reproduced as follows:- "15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant? “Tamil” The petitioner stated in Column 15 of the Verification Roll that he had never been concerned in any criminal case as an accused. 9. Column 15 of the Verification Report is reproduced as follows:- "15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant? “Tamil” The petitioner stated in Column 15 of the Verification Roll that he had never been concerned in any criminal case as an accused. 9. According to the petitioner, after the receipt of the impugned order, he verified with the Setthoor Police Station and he was told that he was shown as one of the accused in F.I.R. 118/2001 and later, on investigation, his name was deleted. F.I.R. is dated 4.5.2001 and the Charge Sheet is dated 17.5.2001. I have perused the F.I.R. as well as Charge Sheet. His name is found in F.I.R. dated 4.5.2001, but his name is not found in the Charge sheet dated 17.5.2001. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that he was not aware about the F.I.R. in Crime No.118/2001. He specifically has averred so in paragraph No.6.3 of the O.A.No.2257 of 2002. Paragraph 6.3 of O.A. is as follows:- "6.3. The applicant submits that he was not aware of the Crime No.118/2001 on the file of the Setthoor Police Station and also not aware of the aforesaid incident. After receiving the order of the third respondent the applicant approached the Setthoor Police Station and enquired about the Crime No.118/2001. The applicant was informed that the Crime No.118/2001 was registered at the Complaint of one Lingammal President of the Vadukku Devadanam Panchayat on 04.05.2001 for the alleged incident of demolition of a ladies toilet owned by the Panchayat on 04.05.2001. the applicant was also informed that the name of the applicant was initially implicated as accused No.4 in the First Information Report on 04.05.2001 along with seven others. After thorough investigation the name of the applicant was removed since he is no way connected with the alleged incident. A case was filed as C.C.No.321/2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate's Court, at Rajapalayam. The Charge sheet for the C.C.No.321/2001 was filed on 17.05.2001. In the Charge sheet the name of the applicant was removed and the name of one Ganesan was added as per the statement given by the complainant Lingammal on 04.05.2001. After trial the C.C.No.321/2001 ended in acquittal of all the eight accused on 26.02.2002." 10. The reply of the respondent to Paragraph No.6.3 is as follows:- "9. In the Charge sheet the name of the applicant was removed and the name of one Ganesan was added as per the statement given by the complainant Lingammal on 04.05.2001. After trial the C.C.No.321/2001 ended in acquittal of all the eight accused on 26.02.2002." 10. The reply of the respondent to Paragraph No.6.3 is as follows:- "9. With regard to the averment in para 6(3) of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant's name was deleted from the charge sheet only due to the pressure of caste leaders and he was actually involved in that case. This does not warrant the applicant to claim as a matter of right to be appointed as Grade-II Police Constable." 11. Except the statement of the respondents in the counter affidavit that name of the applicant was deleted in the F.I.R. due to pressure from caste leaders, it was not known as to how the respondents have come to such a conclusion. 12. In any event the reason for rejecting the claim of the applicant for the post of Grade-II Police Constable, is not on the ground that the petitioner brought pressure to delete his name in the F.I.R. On the other hand, it is stated that the petitioner suppressed the fact of pendency of criminal case in Crime No.118 of 2001 on the file of Setthoor Police Station. The petitioner explained that he was not aware of the very case itself, as there was no prosecution conducted by the police against him and he explained the above said fact. The respondents have stated that the petitioner brought pressure and hence the name of the petitioner was deleted. As already stated above, no such allegation was made in the impugned order that he brought pressure to delete his name. Now the respondents could not improve the case by giving more reasons in the counter affidavit and the same is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANOTHER v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & OTHERS (1978 (1) S.C.C.,405). Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the training, the petitioner was also given appointment and he has been working for the past 10 years. 13. For all the above said reasons, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.