Judgment The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Police Constable (Men/Women) Grade-II, for the year 2012 to 2013, by considering her representation, dated 21.11.2011. 2. The petitioner applied for the appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II and participated in the Selection by the third respondent. She possessed required qualification and passed in the written test on 03.08.2008 and qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test on 15.11.2008. She was declared Fit in the Medical Test conducted by the Second Respondent. 3. The petitioner was waiting for the training order as she had cleared all the tests conducted by the respondents. She did not receive any communication from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2, on 20.01.2010. She made another representation on 28.04.2010 as she did not get any reply to her earlier representation. The respondents did not pass any orders on the representation of the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.1444 of 2011, for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to give training order to the petitioner. Pending writ petition, the first respondent passed the order in Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.204/34908/appointment(2)/2011 dated 21.06.2011. In view of the proceedings passed by the first respondent dated 21.06.2011, the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1444 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court on 22.06.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order. In the said proceedings, it has been stated that the petitioner was an accused in Cr.No.156 of 2004, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 354 and 506(i) of IPC and the petitioner did not fill up the column whether she has been arrayed as accused in any criminal case and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given appointment to the post of Grade-II Women Police Constable and was acquitted only on benefit of doubt. 5. The petitioner filed Crl.R.C.(MD)No.683 of 2011 before this Court against the order in C.C.No.2 of 2005. According to the petitioner, she was acquitted Honourably by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.683 of 2011, dated 18.08.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 21.11.2011 to consider her, in the next recruitment, since she has cleared all the tests and she did not fill up the column with regard to Criminal Proceedings as she was acquitted by then. 6. According to the petitioner, she was acquitted Honourably by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.683 of 2011, dated 18.08.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 21.11.2011 to consider her, in the next recruitment, since she has cleared all the tests and she did not fill up the column with regard to Criminal Proceedings as she was acquitted by then. 6. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings on the following ground that the Division Bench of this Court in similar case in W.A(MD)No.636 of 2010 held that once a person has been Honourably acquitted, he should be considered for the next recruitment subject to his satisfying the other qualifications other than the age for the purpose of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 7. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit for himself and on behalf of the first respondent denying the various averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Criminal case in Ottapidaram Police Station in Crime No.156 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 354, 506(i) IPC & 4 of TNPWH Act 2002. She was acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.2 of 2005 dated 24.05.2006 by Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam. The petitioner intentionally suppressed this fact. 8. As per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service, the petitioner was not appointed as Grade-II Police Constable. Rejection order has clearly stated that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of her involvement in the criminal case, while filling up the application and verification Roll in Column 15,16 & 18. 9. A full bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 (Manikandan and others vs. Chairman, T.N.Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board) upheld the validity of Rule 14(b). The SLPs Nos.4679 to 4681 of 2009 challenging the common order of Full Bench was dismissed confirming the Judgment of Full bench of this Court. A larger Bench of this Court by order dated 27.02.2014 in W.P.(md)No.8345 of 2011 batch reported in 2013(6) CTC 423 (J.Alex Ponseelan vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu) confirmed the judgment of Full Bench and upheld the validity of Rule 14(b). The petitioner has suppressed the said fact, while filling up the verification roll. A larger Bench of this Court by order dated 27.02.2014 in W.P.(md)No.8345 of 2011 batch reported in 2013(6) CTC 423 (J.Alex Ponseelan vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu) confirmed the judgment of Full Bench and upheld the validity of Rule 14(b). The petitioner has suppressed the said fact, while filling up the verification roll. Therefore, she is not entitled for the appointment for the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2007-2008. 10. The respondents stated that as per Rule 14(b) explanation 1 to clause (iv) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case or due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile" shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case. A person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State. That the failure of a person to disclose in the application form either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case. For the above reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Heard Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent. 12. I have perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate reiterated the averments made in Affidavit and counter affidavit. 13. The petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable and participated in the selection process conducted by the second respondent during the year 2007-2008. She was successful in all the tests conducted by the third respondent and Medical Tests conducted by the second respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 rejected her application and did not appoint her as she has suppressed the fact that she was involved in a criminal case. 14. She was successful in all the tests conducted by the third respondent and Medical Tests conducted by the second respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 rejected her application and did not appoint her as she has suppressed the fact that she was involved in a criminal case. 14. Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rule is extracted hereunder:- "14(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the Appointing Authority,- i) that he is sound of health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; and ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; and iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living and iv) that he has not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification Explanation(1): A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complaint "turned hostile" shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case. Explanation(2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police verification and the case yet to be disposed of an 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." 15. Validity of Rule 14(b) was upheld by Full Bench of this Court in Judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 (Manikandan V.Chairman, T.N.Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board) in para 17 & 40 reads as follows:- "17. In Delhi Administration v.Sushil Kumar, 1996(11) SCC 605 , the provisional selection of a person for appointment as a Constable in the Delhi Police Services, was cancelled after it was found at the time of verification of his character and antecedents that he was involved in a Criminal Case. But the Central Administrative Tribunal directed his appointment on the ground that he was subsequently discharged and/or acquitted of the offence and hence, he could not be denied the right of appointment. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held as follows:- "It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under State. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held as follows:- "It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the Appointing Authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the Appointing Authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offices, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing Authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service." The law so laid down by the Supreme Court in this case, still holds the field. As seen from the passage extracted above, the emphasis in such cases, is not so much on the ultimate outcome of the Criminal Case, as it is on the conduct of a person which led to his involvement or implication in the Criminal Case. 40. Therefore, in conclusion, we hold that the amended Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil nadu Police Subordinate Services is not ultra vires or unconstitutional. We also hold that the non selection of the writ petitioners or the rejection of their candidates, by the respondents, either on the basis of their involvement in Criminal Case or on the basis of the suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid and justified. We also hold that the non selection of the writ petitioners or the rejection of their candidates, by the respondents, either on the basis of their involvement in Criminal Case or on the basis of the suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid and justified. In answer to the reference made to the Full Bench, we hold- (a) that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a Criminal Case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and (b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the Application form, either his involvement in a Criminal Case or the pendency of a Criminal Case against him, would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the Criminal Case. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs." This judgment was confirmed by Apex Court on 28.02.2008 when SLP.No.4679 to 4681 of 2009 were dismissed. 16. A Larger Bench of this Court on reference confirmed the Judgment of Full Bench. By the order dated 27.02.2014 made in W.P(MD)No.8345 of 2011 batch reported in 2014(2) L.W. Tr.J.Alex Ponseelan and others vs. DGP/CNI-4., DGP/TNUSRB and SP, Thoothukudi District and others answered the reference as follows in paragraph 21:- "21. I, therefore, answer the Reference in the following: (i) The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan's case, reported in 2008-2-L.W. 106= 2008(2) CTC 97 , is a goodlaw. (ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1 and 2 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules in intra vires of the Constitution, as has already been held by the Full Bench in the Manikandan's case and by the learned Single Judge in V.Veeramani's case. 17. The petitioner is not challenging the validity of Rule 14(b) or her denial of appointment as Grade-II Police Constable in the selection held during 2007-2008. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Police Constable (Men/women) Grade II for the year 2012-2013 by considering her representation dated 21.11.2011. 18. 17. The petitioner is not challenging the validity of Rule 14(b) or her denial of appointment as Grade-II Police Constable in the selection held during 2007-2008. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Police Constable (Men/women) Grade II for the year 2012-2013 by considering her representation dated 21.11.2011. 18. The Full Bench of this Court in 2008(2) CTC (Manikandan v. Chairman, T.N.Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board) in paragraph 35 held as follows:- "Thus the above latest decision of the Apex Court has cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue. Therefore we hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the Application form is filled up, is fatal. His subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise..." 19. From this conclusion, it is clear that whether a person is eligible for current selection or for all the future selection depends on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. In the present case, the petitioner was acquitted honourably by the order dated 18.08.2011 made in Crl.R.C.No.683 of 2011. 20. A Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 18.01.2012 made in W.A.(MD) No.636 of 2010 in paragraphs 12 and 13 held as follows:- “12. Thus, on the face of the above position, the Director General of Police is directed to consider the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner in the next announcement for the selection of candidates to the post of the Sub-Inspector of Police, subject to the appellant passing the physical fitness test. It is seen that the petitioner is stated to have come under the category of Backward Class. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, he was 28 years old. It is seen that the petitioner is stated to have come under the category of Backward Class. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, he was 28 years old. Considering the passage of time thereafterwards in passing the orders in the Writ Petition and thereafter in the writ appeal, in fitness of things, this Court feels that the petitioner be considered for selection, if otherwise found fit in the immediate next selection announcement process. 13. Thus, taking note of the orders passed in the criminal case in Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2008, the respondents shall consider the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner, subject to her satisfying the other qualification other than the age, for the purpose or appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the coming recruitment only. 21. A full Bench of this Court reported in 2008(2) MLJ 1203 (F.B) in paragraphs 17 and 40 held as follows:- "17. failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case". 40. "Therefore in conclusion, we hold that the amendment Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is not ultra vires or unconstitutional. We also hold that the non-selection of the Writ Petitions or the rejection of their candidatures, by the respondents, either on the basis of their involvement in criminal case or on the basis of the suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid and justified". 22. The larger bench of this Court, by the Order dated 27.02.2014, made in W.P(MD)No.8345 of 2011 etc., filed by Tr.J.Alex Ponseelan and others vs. DGP/CNI-4., DGP/TNUSRB and SP, Thoothukudi District and others have observed as follows:- "21. I, therefore, answer the Reference in the following: i) The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan's case, reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 , is a good law. ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanation 1 and 2 of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules in ultra vires of the Constitution, as has already been held by the Full Bench in the Manikandan's case and by the learned Single Judge in V.Veeramani's case". 23. ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanation 1 and 2 of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules in ultra vires of the Constitution, as has already been held by the Full Bench in the Manikandan's case and by the learned Single Judge in V.Veeramani's case". 23. In view of the above fact that the petitioner was acquitted honourably and judgments of full Bench and Larger Bench and Judgment dated 18.01.2012 W.A.(MD)No.636 of 2010, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. She is entitled to be considered in the next selection process only. 24. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner in the next selection subject to the petitioner satisfying the other qualifications for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II. No costs.