Judgment :- 1. Mr. Rm. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 6.4.2010 and to direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable and depute him for training. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed Plus Two (+2) examinations in the year 2002 and he applied for selection to the post of Police Constable Grade-II in the year 2006-2007 and he was assigned with registration No.0505320. After passing written test, petitioner was allowed to participate in the physical measurement test and physical efficiency test conducted by the respondents and the petitioner was provisionally selected. Thereafter petitioner was called for police verification and during that time petitioner gave the details about the criminal case pending against him in Cr.No.249/2007 on the file of Kullanchavadi Police Station for the offences under Sections 294, 324, 326 IPC for the alleged incident said to have taken place on 10.10.2007. According to the petitioner, charge sheet was filed in the said case and the case was tried in C.C.No.153 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III Court, Cuddalore and the petitioner was honourably acquitted from the charges on 30.9.2008. Due to pendency of the said criminal case, petitioner was not finally selected for the post of Police Constable Gr.II. The said decision was intimated to the petitioner by proceedings dated 12.1.2009. 4. For the subsequent selection held in the year 2009 petitioner applied and the petitioner was called upon to appear for written test, which was conducted on 25.10.2009 and the registration number assigned to the petitioner was 0603695. Petitioner was called for physical verification and physical measurement tests and he having obtained 79 marks in toto and he being SC candidate, he was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Police Constable Gr. II and he was called for medical examination and police verification. Even during that police verification, petitioner disclosed the details about the criminal case which ended in acquittal on 30.9.2008. II and he was called for medical examination and police verification. Even during that police verification, petitioner disclosed the details about the criminal case which ended in acquittal on 30.9.2008. According to the petitioner all other candidates who were provisionally selected along with the petitioner were deputed for training and the petitioner was not sent for training and his selection was cancelled by the impugned order dated 6.4.2010 stating that the conduct of the petitioner was not good and therefore petitioner cannot be appointed as Gr. II Police Constable. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue as to whether a person involved in criminal case can participate in the subsequent selection after acquittal, was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 (Manikandan v. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board). In the said decision the Full Bench held that if a person who is aspiring for police selection, who is involved in criminal case, need not be considered for the first selection and if acquitted in the criminal case, he can be considered for the next selection. The Full Bench has considered the bar contained in Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. Placing reliance on the said decision the learned counsel submitted that in the light of the said decision of the Full Bench, petitioner cannot be disqualified for second selection, that too after his acquittal in the criminal case. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents after going through the Full Bench judgment cited supra submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner herein is already settled by the said decision of the Full Bench of this Court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate. 8. Explanation-2 to Rule 14(b) which is relied on to reject the claim of the petitioner for the second time clearly states that '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.' 9. Petitioner herein due to involvement in the criminal case was not selected in the year 2006-2007, even though he was provisionally selected. The said case ended in acquittal on 30.9.2008. In the subsequent selection i.e., 2009 selection, petitioner participated and was again provisionally selected. 10. Applying the above said rule to the facts of this case, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was provisionally selected as per the list published by the second respondent on 12.1.2010 and petitioner's Registration No.0603695 is found in the selection list. In view of the provisional selection of the petitioner and the only reason stated for not sending the petitioner for training being involvement of the petitioner in criminal case, which was considered as debarment for earlier selection, the impugned order dated 6.4.2010 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to issue selection order to the petitioner and depute him for training as he was already provisionally selected as per the notification issued by the second respondent. Necessary order is directed to be issued by the first respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.