Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the third respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable (Prison) in pursuant to the selection made in the year 2001 under the serial No. 031064/01. 2. The petitioner after passing +2 also completed the course in B.A. Philosophy, but due to compartment in one subject, he was not awarded the degree. 3. The petitioner applied for the post of constable in pursuance to the advertisement by the respondent and appeared in the various test conducted for selection to the post of constable. 4. The submission of the petitioner is that after under going the oral test and medical test, the communication was sent on 22.08.2001 to the Inspector of Police (Special Branch), Thiruvallore, to verify and report about the conduct and character of the applicant being a mandatory requirement before being appointed to a public post. 5. In response, a report was sent, that the petitioner was an accused in case in Crime No.267 of 2000 for an offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of TNP Act. 6. It is submitted that persons selected with the petitioner were to be sent for training on 15.04.2002 and that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case registered against bim. 7. A copy of the judgment was sent to the respondents, but inspite of the acquittal, no action has been taken to appoint the petitioner, which has forced the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 8. The writ petition is opposed, on the ground that though petitioner was acquitted of the charge, but he was guilty of suppressing the material fact about the pending of criminal case in the application form. Therefore, even though, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner, but the petitioner had failed to disclose this fact, therefore inspite of acquittal he was not found fit for appointment as Constable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that once the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case, there is no justification with the respondents not to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, while other persons selected with the petitioner for appointment, have been appointed. 10. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. 11. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that once the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case, there is no justification with the respondents not to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, while other persons selected with the petitioner for appointment, have been appointed. 10. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. 11. As observed above, the petitioner has been denied the appointment for suppression of material facts and not due to pendency of criminal case, as pendency of criminal case itself cannot be a ground to deny appointment if the offence does not involve moral turptitude, but non disclosure of material fact does lead to a conclusion that a person is not fit for public appointment. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner, though selected. No merit. "Dismissed". No costs.