JUDGMENT :- S. Manikumar, J. 1. Both the appeals, arise out of a common issue, as to whether the rejection of the appellants, for selection and appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, for the year 2007-08, vide individual orders issued in Na.Ka.No.119792/Appointment 1(2)/2012-1, dated, 13.07.2012, by the Director General of Police, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, and confirmed by the Writ Court in W.P(MD)Nos.13148 and 13149 of 2012, dated 23.09.2014, is correct or not. As submission in both the appeals is common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Material on record discloses that selection for the post of Grade-II Police Constable, for the year 2007-08, has been notified. Both the appellants attended written examination on 03.08.2008 and were successful. Thereafter, police verification was done. Selection has been finalised, in the year 2008 itself. Vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.22733/Appointment 1(2)/2008, dated, 03.06.2009 of the Director General of Police, Chennai, appellants have been informed that during police verification, it came to light that they were involved in Crime Nos.268 and 269 of 2008, under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and vide judgment in STC.No.5054 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Court (Evening Court), Thoothukudi, appellants have paid fine of Rs.300/-, each. In the communication dated 03.06.2009, the Director General of Police, Chennai, has stated that the appellants have suppressed factum of involvement of criminal case in Column Nos.15, 16 and 18 of the application form. 3. Citing rule 14(b)(iv) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, which states that if a candidate is involved in a criminal case, he is not eligible for appointment, appellants have been informed that they have not been selected and appointed to the post of Grade-II Police Constable. 4. Material on record further discloses that after the selection is over in the year 2008, Criminal Revision (MD) No.772 of 2010, has been filed, by both the appellants, to set aside the judgment, made in STC.No.5054 of 2008 dated 18.08.2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Court (Evening Court), Thoothukudi. 4. Material on record further discloses that after the selection is over in the year 2008, Criminal Revision (MD) No.772 of 2010, has been filed, by both the appellants, to set aside the judgment, made in STC.No.5054 of 2008 dated 18.08.2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Court (Evening Court), Thoothukudi. Following the decision in Kalaiselvan vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2004 (2) CTC 180 and by observing that FIR and charge sheet in STC.No.5054 of 2008, have been filed by one and the same police officer, and that the appellants have not been granted any time for reflection, before they plead guilty of the offence, vide order dated 04.02.2011, Criminal Revision(MD)No.772 of 2010, has been allowed, setting aside the judgment of the lower court in STC.No.5054 of 2008. Thus the appellants have been acquitted of the charge against them. Thereafter, S.Balakrishna (Appellant in W.A.285/15), has submitted a petition, dated 28.03.2011 to the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. Vide proceedings, dated 15.04.2011, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai, has forwarded the petition dated 28.03.2011 to the Director General of Police, Chennai, for appropriate action. Similar representation, dated 01.03.2012, has been made by S.Chandrasekar (Appellant in W.A.286/15), to the Director General of Police, Chennai. Subsequently, S.Balakrishna (Appellant in W.A.285/15) has made representations dated 01.03.2012 and 17.04.2012 respectively. 5. Material on record discloses that after considering both the representations, individual orders have been issued, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.119792/Appointment 1(2)/2012-1, dated, 13.07.2012, by the Director General of Police, Chennai, rejecting the request of the appellants, citing G.O.Ms.No.101, Home (Police-IX) Department, dated 31.01.2003, under rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. 6. Both the orders have been challenged in W.P (MD) Nos.13148 and 13149 of 2012 respectively. Before the Writ Court, it has been contended that both the appellants, did not admit the offences, on their own volition, instead, they were forced, by the investigating officer, to admit the offence, and that is why, they had admitted the offence and paid a sum of Rs.300/- each, as fine. It was also contended that Criminal Revision (MD) No.772 of 2010 filed by them has been allowed vide judgment dated 04.02.2011, setting aside the conviction and sentence, imposed in STC.No.5054 of 2008 dated 18.08.2008. 7. It was also contended that Criminal Revision (MD) No.772 of 2010 filed by them has been allowed vide judgment dated 04.02.2011, setting aside the conviction and sentence, imposed in STC.No.5054 of 2008 dated 18.08.2008. 7. In the counter affidavit, filed before the Writ Court, the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, has submitted that both the appellants were involved in a criminal case, for the offence under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, and that both of them have been convicted, and paid fine of Rs.300/- each, on 18.08.2008 in STC.No.5054 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I Court (Evening Court), Thoothukudi, and thus both of them, suffered disqualification, for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, for the year 2007-08. Having regard to the rival submissions, the Writ Court, at paragraph 7 of the order, held as follows:- "7. The legal issue in the matter is no more res integra, in view of the judgment of the larger bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Alex Pandian vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, reported in 2014 (2) CTC 337 , wherein, the larger bench has held that before police verification, as per rule 14(b), if it is found that the individual is involved in a criminal case, irrespective of the fact, that it is a petty offence, even then, he is not eligible for appointment. The larger bench has further clarified that as per the said Rule in the event of acquittal and the acquittal is honourable, he will be eligible only for future appointment. Applying the said principle to the present case, it is not possible to hold that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not right. It does not require any interference at the hands of the Court, except making a clarification. At the most this Court is of the view that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner, which in the opinion of this Court is honourable, the petitioner is entitled to be considered only for future selection. In other words, the involvement of the petitioner in the above stated criminal case is not a disqualification for the petitioner to participate in the future selection process for the post of Grade II Police Constable. Except making this clarification, no other relief could be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition." 8. In other words, the involvement of the petitioner in the above stated criminal case is not a disqualification for the petitioner to participate in the future selection process for the post of Grade II Police Constable. Except making this clarification, no other relief could be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition." 8. Assailing the correctness of the orders made in W.P(MD)Nos.13148 and 13149 of 2012 dated 23.09.2014, Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the appellants, reiterated the submissions advanced before the Writ Court. He further submitted that on the date of submission of the applications, i.e., 03.08.2008, there was no criminal case registered against the appellants, and that there was no suppression. According to him, the appellants were forced to pay the fine amount. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that once the conviction and sentence imposed in STC.No.5054 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I Court (Evening Court), Thoothukudi, is set aside, by this Court in Criminal Revision(MD)No.772 of 2010, dated 04.02.2011, it dates back to the period of selection and therefore, the appellants ought to have been considered, for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and they need not wait, for the future selection, for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. 9. Placing reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in 2011 (4) MLJ 1006 (SC), learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that cancellation of the candidature of the appellants, on the ground of minor misdeeds alleged to have been committed, has been held, as illegal and that therefore, the Director General of Police, Chennai, ought to have condoned the act, rather than, branding them, as criminals, for the rest of their lives. 10. Attention of this Court was also invited to the decision made in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 440, wherein, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appointing authority has to satisfy himself, on the point, as to whether the appellant therein, was suitable, for appointment, to the post of Police Constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of criminal case. In the reported judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the impugned order therein, relating to cancellation of appointment. In the reported judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the impugned order therein, relating to cancellation of appointment. He further added that as on date, the appellants are over aged. For the reasons stated supra, learned counsel for the appellants, prayed for reversal of the orders, made in W.P(MD)Nos.13148 and 13149 of 2012 dated 23.09.2014. 11. Per contra, inviting the attention of this Court, to rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and the Larger Bench decision of this Court in Alex Pandian vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, reported in 2014 (2) CTC 337 , Mr.M.Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that as per the statutory rules, "if it is found that the individual is involved in a criminal case, irrespective of the fact that it is a petty case, even then, he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Police Constable." He also submitted that, in the event of the individual would be eligible, only for future selection and appointment. 12. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not with reference to the statutory rules, applicable for selection to the post of Police Constables in Tamilnadu. He therefore submitted that by applying the statutory rule and the Larger Bench decision, cited supra, the Writ Court, has rightly held, that involvement of the appellants, in criminal cases, would not be a disqualification, but permitted them, to appear in future selection, for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. He submitted that merely because the appellants are over aged, as on date, that cannot be a ground, to reverse the impugned orders. For the abovesaid reasons, learned Special Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the appeals. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. On the facts of this case, it could be seen that Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai, issued a notification on 12.03.2008, for recruitment of 5959 Grade-II Police Constables (Men and Women). When the applications were submitted, there were no criminal cases registered against the appellants. They have successfully, completed the written tests, held on 03.08.2008. Subsequently, on 15.08.2008, cases in Crime Nos.268 and 269 of 2008, have been registered against the appellants, under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act. When the applications were submitted, there were no criminal cases registered against the appellants. They have successfully, completed the written tests, held on 03.08.2008. Subsequently, on 15.08.2008, cases in Crime Nos.268 and 269 of 2008, have been registered against the appellants, under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act. Both the appellants have pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount. 14. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, was over in 2008 itself. In 2009, vide proceedings dated 03.06.2009, appellants have been informed that they were not selected, to the post of Grade-II Police Constables and while doing so, the authority has quoted rule 14(b)(iv) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, which states that persons appointed to the post of Grade-II Police Constable should not have past bad antecedents and that the character should be good and satisfied. At paragraph 2 of the rejection order, the Director General of Police, Chennai, has also stated that there was suppression. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, there cannot be any suppression, at the time of submitting the application, for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, in the year 2008. But, the indisputed fact is that both the appellants, have admitted their guilt, for an offence, under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.300/- each, in default, to undergo, simple imprisonment for a period of one week, in STC.No.5054 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I Court (Evening Court), Thoothukudi. Though there was no suppression of any fact, at the time when they submitted their applications, when they were sentenced for an offence, the appellants ought to have disclosed the said fact, to the authorities. Non disclosure of conviction, recorded by the criminal court, cannot be appreciated. But for the police verification which revealed conviction, the appellants would have been inadvertently considered for selection and appointment, in which event, persons convicted of an offence, would have been appointed to a disciplined force. Non disclosure of conviction, recorded by the criminal court, cannot be appreciated. But for the police verification which revealed conviction, the appellants would have been inadvertently considered for selection and appointment, in which event, persons convicted of an offence, would have been appointed to a disciplined force. After the selection was over, in the year 2008, and two years later, appellants have filed Criminal Revision (MD)No.772 of 2010, which came to be allowed, on 04.02.2011, on the ground that FIR and charge sheet in the case, have been preferred by one and the same officer and also on the ground that the appellants were not granted time before they pleaded guilty. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that when they admitted the guilt in the year 2008, they should have approached the Court immediately. But they have approached the court only in 2010, after the selection is over in 2008, itself, probably realising the fact that conviction in a criminal case, is a disqualification for entry into service, particularly in police department. 16. In Sandeep Kumar's case (cited supra), the respondent therein, applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on 24.02.1999, but he did not mention in his application form that he was involved in a criminal case. Case was registered in 1998, in which, he and his family members were acquitted on 18.01.1998. He was qualified, in all the tests, for selection to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). On 03.04.2001, he filled the attestation form, wherein, for the first time, he disclosed that he was involved in a criminal case with his tenant, which later on, had been compromised in 1998 and that he had been acquitted. 17. On the basis of the information, a show cause notice, dated 02.08.2001 was issued. Reply was given and on 29.05.2013, his candidature was cancelled. Thereafter, he filed a petition, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. High Court allowed the writ petition. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 10, has observed as follows: "10. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life." 18. At paragraph 12, the Apex Court further added that it is true that in the application form, the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably, he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. 19. With great respect, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in Sandeep Kumar's case cannot ipso facto, be applied to the facts of this case, for the reason that even before submitting the application form to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999, respondent therein had been acquitted in 1998, but as observed by the Apex Court, he had not disclosed his involvement in the criminal case, possibly with a fear of disqualification. 20. Reverting to the case on hand, there is some difference. On the date, when the appellants submitted their applications for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable, for the year 2007-08, no criminal cases were pending against them. Cases have been subsequently registered and during the process of police verification, it has been found that both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in STC.No.5054 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tuticorin, and that they have also paid the fine amount. It is a well settled proposition of law that decisions made by the courts, with reference to statutory provisions, have to be applied and general observations, made while dealing with similar circumstances, would not lend support to the case of the appellants. It is a well settled proposition of law that decisions made by the courts, with reference to statutory provisions, have to be applied and general observations, made while dealing with similar circumstances, would not lend support to the case of the appellants. Larger Bench decision of this Court in Alex Pandian's case (cited supra), has been decided with reference to the statutory rule, in particular, rule 14(b)(iv) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and therefore, it is binding on this Bench. 21. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2011 (6) CTC 440, relied on by Mr.Thalaimutharasu, the appellant therein, was appointed as a Police Constable. Respondent cancelled his appointment, for his act of concealment and suppression of fact of his involvement in a criminal case, in the application form. 22. In the reported case, pursuant to an advertisement, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant applied for the post of Police Constable, and he submitted an affidavit, to the recruiting authority, in the proforma of verification roll. At paragraph 4 of the affidavit, he had stated that no criminal case was registered against him. He was selected and appointed and deputed for training. Thereafter, Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report, dated 15.01.2007, stating that Criminal Case No.275/2001, under Sections 324/323/504 IPC, was registered against the appellant, and thereafter, the criminal case was disposed of, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and that the appellant was acquitted by the Court. Along with this report, a copy of the order dated 18.07.2002, of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed. Report, dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. On receipt of the same, the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, cancelled the selection, on the ground that he had submitted an affidavit, stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts. Cancellation challenged was upheld by the High Court. Correctness of the same was challenged in the Supreme Court. 23. In the reported case, pursuant to an advertisement, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, on 29.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of Police Constable, and he submitted an affidavit, dated 12.06.2006, to the recruiting authority, in the proforma of verification roll. Correctness of the same was challenged in the Supreme Court. 23. In the reported case, pursuant to an advertisement, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, on 29.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of Police Constable, and he submitted an affidavit, dated 12.06.2006, to the recruiting authority, in the proforma of verification roll. At paragraph 4 of the affidavit, he had stated that no criminal case was registered against him. He was selected and appointed and deputed for training. Thereafter, Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report, dated 15.01.2007, stating that Criminal Case No.275/2001, under Sections 324/323/504 IPC, was registered against the appellant, and thereafter, the criminal case was disposed of, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and that the appellant was acquitted by the Court. Along with this report, a copy of the order dated 18.07.2002, of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed. Report, dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. On receipt of the same, the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, cancelled the selection, on the ground that he had submitted an affidavit, stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts. Cancellation was upheld by the High Court. Correctness of the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 24. Reliance has been placed on Sandeep Kumar's case. Per contra, respondents therein, placed reliance, on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in [ (2003) 3 SCC 437 ]. Respondents also referred to a Government Order, on the subject, `Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment'. The relevant rule, pressed into service, by the respondents therein, was that “The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point." 25. Going through the judgment, rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, who acquitted the appellant therein of the charges, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had found that there was no evidence to show that the injured, was beaten up, by the accused, with any sharp weapons. 26. Going through the judgment, rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, who acquitted the appellant therein of the charges, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had found that there was no evidence to show that the injured, was beaten up, by the accused, with any sharp weapons. 26. On the above facts, taking note of the contents of the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, dated 18.07.2002, and the report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the said authority had not gone into the question, as to whether the appellant therein, was suitable for appointment, to the post of Constable, but simply held that the selection of the appellant was illegal, as he had not furnished the details of the criminal case, in the affidavit. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that instead of addressing the suitability for appointment, the appointing authority has mechanically held the selection as illegal. Thus, on the above facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the orders. 27. Case in hand is slightly different, for the reason that selection for the post of Grade-II Police Constable, was over in 2008 itself, and in the interregnum period of submission of application and consideration for selection, the appellants have admitted the guilt, whereas, in Ram Kumar's case, even before the advertisement was made in 2006, appellant therein was acquitted, vide judgment, dated 18.07.2002, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. 28. Further from the judgment in Ramkumar's case, there was no evidence against him. In the abovesaid factual circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the appointing authority had failed to consider, as to whether Ram Kumar was suitable or not, to the post of Police Constable. The said judgment has been rendered, with reference to a Government Order, dealing with verification of the character and antecedents of a person, before making appointment, which mandates the appointing authority, to consider as to whether the character of the candidate, for direct recruitment, must be, such as, to render him, suitable in all respects for employment, in service of post, to which, he is to be appointed. When such consideration, was found to be absent, in the order canceling the selection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the same. When such consideration, was found to be absent, in the order canceling the selection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the same. Reverting to the case on hand, during the selection process, there was conviction against the appellants, and only after two years, conviction has been set aside. 29. Selection is based on statutory rules, prescribing eligibility criteria and in particular, rule 14(b)(iv) of the Special Rules, for the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, which states, that if a candidate is involved in a criminal case, he is not eligible for appointment. During the process of verification, the appointing authority has found that the appellants have not satisfied the criteria. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appointing authority or the Director General of Police, Chennai, has mechanically passed the impugned orders, cannot be countenanced. 30. As observed earlier, there cannot be any suppression, on the part of the appellants, at the time when they submitted their applications. But after completion of the written tests and during police verification, conviction and payment of fine, had come to the knowledge of the authorities. Discovery of the said fact cannot be ignored. Criminal Revision (MD) No.772 of 2010, has been disposed of, on legal grounds. Evidence has not been discussed. Therefore, with due respect, we are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the facts on hand is similar to Ram Kumar's case. Even taking it for granted that conviction has been set aside in 2010, it cannot be retrospectively applied, to the non selection of the appellants which was conducted in the year 2008. Selection or non selection, depends upon the satisfaction of the required criteria, at the time of scrutiny of application, during the process of selection and if a person is disqualified, during such process, on account of conviction and if the same, is set aside, at a later point of time, by a higher forum, the judgment rendered acquitting the candidate, cannot be applied retrospectively, to the period of selection and in the case on hand, when the selection has already been finalised in 2008 itself. Eligibility criteria has to be satisfied on the date of submission of application, during the selection process and till it is finalised. 31. Eligibility criteria has to be satisfied on the date of submission of application, during the selection process and till it is finalised. 31. Thus, for the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that the appellants have not made out a case for interference. In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. (MD) Nos.2 and 2 of 2015 are closed.