JUDGMENT : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. D. Gandhiraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials produced. 2. This writ appeal by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board and two others is directed against the Order, dated 26.03.2013, made in W.P. (MD) No. 3514 of 2013, filed by the respondent herein. 3. In this Judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the nomenclature in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to select him to the post of Police Constable as he has passed the written examination, physical and medical tests. The said writ petition was disposed of along with other connected matters by a common order, dated 26.03.2013. By the said common order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the writ petitioner cannot be found guilty of suppression of facts either in the application form or in the verification roll and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature cannot be justified. In Paragraph No. 21 of the common order, dated 26.03.2013, the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner's name was not at all mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the charge-sheet. 5. The respondents have preferred this writ appeal on the ground that though the writ petitioner was arrested and in custody as on 14.10.2011, he has suppressed this fact in his application, dated 17.11.2012, submitted for the appointment to the post of Police Constable. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts while submitting his application form and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was not justified. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Writ Court, after going through the entire records, has pointed out that the petitioner's name was not at all mentioned in the F.I.R., as well as in the charge-sheet. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Writ Court, after going through the entire records, has pointed out that the petitioner's name was not at all mentioned in the F.I.R., as well as in the charge-sheet. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No. 538 of 2011, dated 11.10.2011, on the file of Vadipatti Police Station and the Final Report, dated 30.01.2012, which shows that the writ petitioner was not an accused. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others vs. G. Ramamoorthy, W.A. (MD) No. 1387 of 2011, dated 02.12.2011, which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court, by order, dated 21.07.2014, in Special Leave to Appeal C.C. No. 6988 of 2014, the appeal having been dismissed at the condone delay stage itself. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 and Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2011 (6) CTC 440. 8. The short issue, which falls for consideration is whether there was any suppression of facts by the petitioner, while submitting his application form for appointment to the post of Police Constable. 9. Three columns in the application form would be relevant for the present case. They are Column Nos. 15, 16 and 18, which reads as follows:- 15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant? 16. Have you ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence? If so, give details with C.C. No. and Court. 18. Are where any civil or criminal cases pending against you? 10. The candidate, who applies for the said post, which is an Uniformed Service, has to disclose as to whether he has been concerned in any criminal case; whether he has been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence and whether any criminal or civil cases are pending against him. The candidate, who applies for the said post, which is an Uniformed Service, has to disclose as to whether he has been concerned in any criminal case; whether he has been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence and whether any criminal or civil cases are pending against him. Since the service being an Uniformed Service and the selected candidate would become a Police Constable, it is necessary that there should be full and true disclosure of all facts. 11. The Honourable Full Bench of this Court, in Manikandan vs. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 2008 (2) CTC 97 , has upheld the constitutional validity of the amended Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinates Services as not being ultra vires and held that the non-selection of the writ petitioners therein or rejection of their candidature by the respondent either on the basis of their involvement in criminal case or on the basis of suppression of their involvement in the criminal case is perfectly valid and justified. 12. A learned Single Judge of this Court took a view contrary to the decision of the Honourable Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan's case, which ultimately led to a reference being made to a Bench consisting of Five Honourable Judges, who held that Manikandan's case requires no re- consideration. 13. Thus, if a candidate suppress his involvement in the criminal case while submitting his application, then it would be fatal to his selection. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Ramamoorthy (cited supra) is of little assistance to the writ petitioner as the Larger Bench of this Court, in J. Alex Ponseelan vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, in W.P. (MD) No. 8345 of 2011 etc. batch, has further reiterated the correctness of the decision in Manikandan's case. 14. batch, has further reiterated the correctness of the decision in Manikandan's case. 14. The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Kumar and Ram Kumar (cited supra) are distinguishable on facts and they cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since there is a binding decision of the Honourable Full Bench of this Court, which has considered the vires of Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinates Services and upheld the same and the present selection is under the said Service Rules. 15. In the case on hand, the writ petitioner has answered "No" for Question Nos. 15, 16 and 18. That would mean that he has not been concerned in any criminal case, not been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence and no civil or criminal case is pending against him. But, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was arrested and was in custody as on 14.10.2011. Admittedly, the application was filed for appointment to the said post on 17.11.2012 and on the said date, the petitioner ought to have disclosed his arrest and detention as there is a specific question in the application form, namely, Question No. 16. Thus, it is evident that the writ petitioner has failed to disclose the details of his arrest, which was much prior to the date of submitting his application. Therefore, by applying the law laid down by the Honourable Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan's case, which was reiterated by the Honourable Larger Bench of this Court in Alex Ponseelan's case, the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the Order, dated 26.03.2013, made in W.P. (MD) No. 3514 of 2013, is set aside. C.M.P. (MD) No. 332 of 2017 is closed. Consequently, W.P. (MD) No. 3514 of 2013 stands dismissed. No costs.