JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent herein in his communication in Na.Ka.No.22733/appointment 1 (2)/2009-2009 dated 10.06.2009, quash the same and for a direction to the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner in the post of Second Grade Constable in the existing vacancy. 2. The sum and substance of the case is that the petitioner was successful in the test conducted by the second respondent for the post of Second Grade Constable. Despite securing highest mark, he was not informed of the reasons for not selecting him to the said post. He has stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and that persons, who have secured 48 marks, were appointed to the post of Second Grade Constable and he was not selected and the reason was not known to him. Subsequently, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 he collected the details, wherein the first respondent has sent a reply dated 10.06.2009 informing the petitioner that a criminal case in Crime No.90 of 2005 under Sections 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 r/w Section 328 of IPC was registered against him on the file of Kondaalampatti Police Station of Salem district and an action in respect the same was dropped by an order dated 15.02.2007 in Diary No.358 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate – VI, Salem and that the petitioner has suppressed these details about the criminal case and hence the petitioner was not selected. 3. The petitioner had contended further that there was a criminal case against all the people in the village the petitioner belongs and a criminal case was registered under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 by the Superintendent of Police, Salem Rural District. The petitioner was working as a coolie and he was not aware about any incident and he was innocent and pleaded that the case may be dropped against him. He got bail and the police have not enquired him about the incident at all. Based on the verbal instructions given by the Inspector of Police that actions have been dropped against the petitioner and under the bonafide impression that the criminal case against the petitioner was dropped, the petitioner filled up the application for the post of Second Grade Constable by mentioning that no criminal case was pending against him. Based on the verbal instructions given by the Inspector of Police that actions have been dropped against the petitioner and under the bonafide impression that the criminal case against the petitioner was dropped, the petitioner filled up the application for the post of Second Grade Constable by mentioning that no criminal case was pending against him. Based on the information given under the Right to Information Act, as mentioned supra, the petitioner came to know that the criminal case has been registered against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and he was not selected to the post of Second Grade Constable and he sent a representation dated 24.06.2009 requesting the details about the criminal case against him and the status of investigation. The 3rd Respondent has sent a reply to him on 13.07.2009 that nobody was affected due to the liquor allegedly possessed by the petitioner, the same was not sent for chemical examination and no report was received in that aspect. There are no details in the case diary to show that the petitioner or his neighbour or his father was enquired by the police regarding his presence and no certificate from Village Administrative Officer has been obtained regarding his absence in the village. Thirty cases filed against the villagers on the same day otherwise registered were closed as further action dropped. 4. The petitioner further submitted that the allegation that he was not traceable by the Inspector of Police, Kondaalampatti is not correct and that he has been living in the same village and he has submitted that he has got enormous documents to show his presence in the village, such as insurance policy, loan availed from Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, payment of property tax, electricity card, voter’s ID etc. As the criminal case was a false case and that admittedly no materials, such as Chemical Analysis Report, Mahazar, Topo Sketch was produced, the 4th respondent has simply relied on a single page charge-sheet in the printed form stating that there is no possibility for further development in the case and hence the further action is dropped. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate – VI passed an order dated 15.02.2007 dropping action against all the 30 persons. 5. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate – VI passed an order dated 15.02.2007 dropping action against all the 30 persons. 5. The petitioner further stated that the 4th respondent, after registering the criminal case against the petitioner and without conducting any investigation in respect of this and without enquiring the petitioner, has simply filed a final report stating that he was not traceable and further action may be dropped. There is no conviction by the court, as there is no criminal case initiated against him. He cannot be stigmatized as a criminal or a convict to debar from getting public employment. Due to the inaction on the part of the 4th respondent against innocent people en masse and conducting improper investigation in the manner unknown to law, which made the life of the persons like the petitioner uncertain without knowing where he stand. The action of the 4th respondent is completely in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in getting public employment and also the right to life. The police ought to have noticed that he was hailing from a downtrodden community and getting employment in police or government being “Schedule Tribe” is very difficult. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the communication of the first respondent dated 10.06.1999, to quash the same and to appoint the petitioner in the post of Second Grade Constable in the existing vacancies or in the future vacancies. 6. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and also additional counter. In the detailed counter he has stated that since the petitioner has committed an offence of possessing illicit arrack, the above case was registered and he was arrested red-handed. Though case was dropped for some other reasons, but his involvement in the commission of the offence was true. He has further stated that no certificate from the Village Administrative Officer was obtained regarding the absence of the petitioner in the village. However, police made enquiries and that since the petitioner was living in hill area and the village folk indulging in the business of illicit arrack did not reveal his whereabouts, securing the petitioner was decided by the police to be very remote and impossible and therefore a report was filed before the court accordingly. 7. However, police made enquiries and that since the petitioner was living in hill area and the village folk indulging in the business of illicit arrack did not reveal his whereabouts, securing the petitioner was decided by the police to be very remote and impossible and therefore a report was filed before the court accordingly. 7. The third respondent has also admitted that the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing informed the court that further action be dropped, based on which the court has passed an order. The third respondent has stated that the petitioner might be possessing various documents like insurance policy, etc., but the village folk did not permit the police to do enquiries and whenever the police approached the area, they allowed the petitioner to escape and made the situation to drop further action. The third respondent has also admitted that the contraband was not sent for chemical examination, as no one was affected by it and further action was dropped, as the petitioner’s whereabouts was not known. But reiterated that the involvement of the petitioner that he was in possession of the illicit arrack was true. 8. Both the petitioner and the third respondent relied on Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services 1953 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.101 Home (Pol.IX) Department dated 30.01.2003. Since the petitioner has not disclosed the details in the application form meant for appearance in the selection to the post of Second Grade Constable, the petitioner was not selected. The petitioner has got to blame himself for not disclosing the fact. Both of them relied upon column 29 and 29(a) of the form meant for applying to such post, the same are extracted below: “Tamil” Whether any criminal case is pending against you? 29(a) “Tamil” 9. Heard both sides. 10. It is not in dispute that there was a case against the petitioner for possessing illicit liquor, which was ultimately closed as further action dropped. "Whether the petitioner’s non-declaration about the pendency of a criminal case or involvement in a criminal case, is a bar for the government to deny him the benefit of selection?" is a moot question in issue? 11. The learned Government Pleader relied upon Rule 14(b) and explanation (2). "Whether the petitioner’s non-declaration about the pendency of a criminal case or involvement in a criminal case, is a bar for the government to deny him the benefit of selection?" is a moot question in issue? 11. The learned Government Pleader relied upon Rule 14(b) and explanation (2). The same is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: Explanation (2) : A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case has 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. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that at the time of verification, as the petitioner was involved in the criminal case, unless and until it is disposed of by means of an order any in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake fact as he has not involved in the criminal case, he can claim the right of appointment by participating in the next recruitment. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that these provisions support the petitioner as he has not involved in any case at all at the time of making an application to the post of Second Grade Constable. There was no case against him, as he has got communication by verbal instructions from the Inspector of Police that there was no case and hence in column No.29 of the Application Form, he has mentioned that there was no case pending. Column 29(a) of the application would apply only if he says that he was involved in a criminal case. Since he was not involved in a criminal case, he has not disclosed in 29(a). After the criminal case has been closed, the petitioner has made application for the post. But he was not selected which came to light only under the representation made under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has given the address in the application where he was residing. The police could have taken him and reopened the case and proceeded with the criminal case to decide whether he is guilty or not. But he was not selected which came to light only under the representation made under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has given the address in the application where he was residing. The police could have taken him and reopened the case and proceeded with the criminal case to decide whether he is guilty or not. Instead of doing that and without communicating the decision in writing that he was not selected on account of his involvement in a criminal case and driving him to get a reply under the Right to Information Act, is really harsh, that too, a person who belongs to a Schedule Tribe. Hence for the discussions mentioned supra, contention that non-selection of the writ petitioner or the rejection of his candidature, either on the basis of his involvement in criminal case or on the basis of the suppression of the involvement is perfectly valid and justified, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner was involved in a case and whether it was pending, convicted or acquitted, column No.29 will apply and thereafter the petitioner will have to fill in column No.29(a). 13. In this case, the further action has been dropped, which means that on the particular day, there was no case at all against the petitioner. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the police can either file a charge-sheet or refer the case as mistake of fact. In this case action was dropped. Hence the application form filled in by the petitioner that he was not involved in any criminal case is correct. That apart, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not communicating the result of non-selection of the petitioner in the Second Grade Constable is unsustainable. The Police has also not taken steps to verify the veracity of the address after the petitioner had applied for the present post. 14. The petitioner is also supported by a decision of this court in A.Esakkimuthuvs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai 600 009 and others reported in 2011(7) MLJ 1286 . This is also a case wherein in the impugned order it was stated the petitioner therein has suppressed the fact of pendency of a criminal case. On verification it came to light about his involvement in the criminal case on the file of Setthoor police station and later, on investigation his name was deleted. This is also a case wherein in the impugned order it was stated the petitioner therein has suppressed the fact of pendency of a criminal case. On verification it came to light about his involvement in the criminal case on the file of Setthoor police station and later, on investigation his name was deleted. In that case the petitioner therein had stated that he was not aware of the case. The relevant portion of the Order of this court is extracted below: ".... 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 and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ." In the case on hand, the petitioner had stated that there was no case, as the police has verbally informed him that further action has been dropped. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The communication of the first respondent dated 10.06.2009 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment in future vacancies to the post of Second Grade Constable without insisting any other test and without barring him to the said post on any other grounds. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.