JUDGMENT D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. 1. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board had published a notification in the dailies calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Fireman for the year 1999-2000. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner herein applied for the same. After scrutiny of the application, the eligible candidates, including the petitioner herein, were subjected to Physical Measurement Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Test and Viva-voce. 2. The petitioner was successful in all the aforesaid tests. Hence, he was provisionally selected for the post of Fireman. He was subjected to medical examination and he was found fit. 3. However, the petitioner was not given appointment order, while his batch-mates, who were provisionally selected were given appointment orders and also deputed for training for three months commencing from 02.12.2002. When the petitioner made enquiry, he was told that he suppressed the registration of criminal case against him in his application for appointment to the post of Fireman. 4. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the criminal case being registered against him and he was not even enquired by any Police Official with regard to any offence. According to him, there was a communal clash between SC/ST people and Vanniyar people of the area and in respect of the clash, a group of both the communities were enquired by the Police in the Taluk Police Station, Chidambaram. But he was neither arrested nor detained in the Police Station. To his knowledge, no case was registered against him. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to appoint him to the post of Fireman. 6. Reply affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that it is true that the petitioner was successful in Physical Measurement Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Test and Viva-voce and that he was provisionally selected. But, on Police verification, it was found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Chidambaram Taluk Police Station in Crime No. 180 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 448, 427 and 307 IPC. Hence, he was not appointed to the said post, though after investigation, the criminal case was referred as mistake of fact. 7. In the reply affidavit, the respondent relied on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, SLP No. 13231 of 1996. Hence, he was not appointed to the said post, though after investigation, the criminal case was referred as mistake of fact. 7. In the reply affidavit, the respondent relied on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, SLP No. 13231 of 1996. The respondent has stated that since the petitioner suppressed the material facts in column nos. 13, 14 and 16 while filling the verification roll relating to registration of the criminal case, he was not given appointment order. The respondent has relied on Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978 and the same was extracted in para 7 of the reply affidavit. Thus, the respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The only reason for not giving appointment order is that the petitioner suppressed about the registration of the criminal case in Crime No. 180 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 448, 427 and 307 IPC. But the case of the petitioner is that he was not even aware of registration of the aforesaid criminal case and he was neither arrested nor detained in jail relating to the said case. He has further stat that he was not even enquired. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that after investigation, even the aforesaid criminal case was closed as mistake of fact. Hence, the same cannot be relied on to deny appointment to the petitioner. 11. Though it is stated in para 6 of the reply affidavit that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of registration of the criminal case in column nos. 13, 14 and 16 of the application, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a model application form, wherein he has relied on column nos.8 and 9 in this regard. Column Nos.8 and 9 of the model application are extracted hereunder. 12. According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to disclose about the pendency of the aforesaid case. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the very registration of the criminal case and he was neither arrested nor detained in custody and he was not even enquired relating to the said case. 13. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the very registration of the criminal case and he was neither arrested nor detained in custody and he was not even enquired relating to the said case. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a copy of the report of the Investing Officer wherein it is stated that the criminal case was closed as mistake of fact. The contents of the report of the Investigating Officer that is produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader is extracted hereunder. 14. The aforesaid report of the Investigating Officer makes it clear that the petitioner cannot be blamed that he suppressed the fact relating to the registration of the criminal case. There is no evidence adduced by the respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the registration of the criminal case. The petitioner made application in January 2000 pursuant to the notification. But the FIR in Crime No. 180 of 2000 was registered on 04.05.2000. That is when he made application, there was no registration of the FIR. The Investigating Officer gave the closure report on 25.05.2000, while selection process got completed in 2002 and the petitioner's batch-mates were given appointment orders in November 2002. Further, the judgment relied on by the respondent in the reply affidavit can have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no reason to deny appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he suppressed the registration of the criminal case. 15. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Fireman within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.