ORDER : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The rejection of the petitioners' candidature for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable and Police Band Party in W.P. (MD) No. 4528 of 2019 made the petitioners to file the present Writ Petitions. 2. For the sake of better convenience and understanding, this Court took up the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 712 of 2019 as the lead case to decide all the Writ Petitions. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition in W. P. (MD) No. 712 of 2019 read as follows: (i) The respondents called for application for the post of Grade II Constable and the petitioner applied to the said post. Earlier, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered in FIR No. 83/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered when he was a college student. The said case was, thereafter, assigned with PRC. No. 15 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilaiyangudi, which was quashed by this Court by order dated 18.05.2017 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 6227 of 2017, on the basis of the compromise entered into between him and the de facto complainant. (ii) The petitioner was selected even on last occasion, but his appointment was refused on account of the above said criminal case. Hence, he filed Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 21157 of 2017 to quash the impugned order and this Court, by order dated 11.01.2018, partly allowed the Writ Petition and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. However, he was denied appointment. (iii) Subsequently, the petitioner again applied for the said post, but, he was denied appointment by the third respondent, by order dated 19.11.2018, citing the same reason, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Appeal No. 4842 of 2013, which was relied upon by the third respondent to deny appointment to the petitioner, is not applicable to the case on hand. Further, as the criminal case was quashed by this Court by way of compromise, the past pendency of the same cannot be taken into account for denial of appointment to the petitioner. 5. Further, as the criminal case was quashed by this Court by way of compromise, the past pendency of the same cannot be taken into account for denial of appointment to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the non-disclosure of the pendency of criminal case is only due to lack of knowledge and not an intentional one. 6. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions: (i) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 . (ii) W.P.(MD) No. 24995 of 2018, dated 08.01.2019 [V. Vasanth vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board]. (iii) Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P., [ 2011 (6) CTC 440 ]. (iv) Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar [ 2011 (4) SCC 644 ]. (v) Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra, dated 12.10.2018 [Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018]. 7. With the above background and drawing the attention of this Court to the above cited decisions, the petitioners submit that they are entitled for appointment and pray for appropriate orders. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents/State would submit that the non-disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case in the application amounts to suppression of material facts. In a matter of public employment, the applicant should be vigilant and has to fill up the application in a proper manner. Without doing so, the petitioners, now, cannot contend that such suppression was due to lack of knowledge. Even if the petitioners fill up the column regarding criminal antecedents in such a manner, the employer has got every right to decide about the antecedents of the petitioners and as to whether the petitioners are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable is vested within the domain of the employer. The application forms issued to the petitioners contained a question relating to the involvement of a candidate in any criminal case. Therefore, the petitioners are duty bound to make a true disclosure while filling up the form. 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 and the subsequent disclosure will not cure the defect. 9. Therefore, the petitioners are duty bound to make a true disclosure while filling up the form. 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 and the subsequent disclosure will not cure the defect. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General, in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments: (i) Manikandan v. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services, 2008 (2) MLJ 1203 . (ii) Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, 2013 (7) SCC 685 . (iii) State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, 2018 (6) CTC 659 . 10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record including the judgments relied on by both parties carefully and meticulously. 11. Coming to W.P.(MD) No. 712/2019-After examination, on antecedents enquiry, it was found that when the petitioner was a college student, a criminal case in FIR No. 83/2016 was registered and the same was subsequently quashed by this Court in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 6227/2017 by compromise. The impugned order proceeds to say that as per Rule 13(b) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'], for the post of Grade II Police Constable, no person is involved in any bad antecedent and as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 38886/2012), dated 02.07.2013, even if the applicant entered into compromise with the complainant, there is no liability fixed to appoint the applicant. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was rejected, considering his antecedents. 12. In respect of W.P.(MD) No. 939/2019-Initially, the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of criminal case in Crime No. 3 of 2017 registered on the file of Palayanoor Police Station, but, at the time of calling for verification, he disclosed the criminal case. The quash petition was allowed recording compromise. The impugned order was passed stating that as per Rule 6(f), before police enquiry, the applicant is not involved in any criminal case. Further, as per explanations 1 and 2, if the applicant is acquitted on benefit of doubt or the complainant turned hostile, the applicant has to be treated as involved in criminal case. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was rejected, not satisfying with his antecedents. 13. Further, as per explanations 1 and 2, if the applicant is acquitted on benefit of doubt or the complainant turned hostile, the applicant has to be treated as involved in criminal case. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was rejected, not satisfying with his antecedents. 13. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 1123 of 2019 is concerned, the impugned order was passed stating that the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of criminal case in Crime No. 323 of 2017 registered on 12.09.2017 at the time of filling up the application form and as per Rule 13(b) and (e), for the post of Grade II Police Constable, the applicant is not involved in any criminal case and his antecedents should be satisfied. Furthermore, during police verification, it was ascertained that this petitioner was absconding related to a criminal case and as per Rule 13(e), if the applicant is acquitted on benefit of doubt or the complainant turned hostile, the applicant has to be treated as involved in criminal case and following the order in W.P. No. 38296 of 2005, dated 28.02.2008, wherein it was observed that if the applicant failed to disclose his involvement in a criminal case while filling up the application form, if pending or closed, the appointing authority is entitled to reject his application taking into account the concealment of fact without waiting for the outcome of the pending criminal case, the second respondent rejected the appointment of the petitioner. 14. Regarding W.P.(MD). No. 1446/2019-In similar line with the reasons stated in W.P.(MD) No. 1123 of 2019 and following Rule 6(f), the second respondent rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable not satisfying with his antecedents. 15. Coming to W.P.(MD) No. 1456/2019-the candidature of the petitioner was rejected contending the reasons so stated in W.P. (MD) No. 1123/2019. 16. In respect of W.P.(MD) No. 2749/2019-As per Rule 13(b) and (e), for the post of Grade II Police Constable, the applicant is not involved in any criminal case and hence, the third respondent rejected his candidature considering his antecedents. 17. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 4106/2019 is concerned, the petitioner's appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable was rejected on account of the fact that the criminal case was ended in compromise and he was not hon'ble acquitted and hence, as per Rule 14(b)(ii) and (iv) as well as G.O. Ms. 17. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 4106/2019 is concerned, the petitioner's appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable was rejected on account of the fact that the criminal case was ended in compromise and he was not hon'ble acquitted and hence, as per Rule 14(b)(ii) and (iv) as well as G.O. Ms. No. 101, Home Department, dated 30.01.2003, his antecedents were not good. 18. Regarding W.P.(MD) No. 4408 of 2019-Appointment to the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable was rejected in similar line with W.P.(MD) No. 1123 of 2019. 19. Coming to W.P.(MD) No. 2809 of 2017-The petitioner sought for a direction to the first respondent to appoint him as Grade II Police Constable, by considering his representation dated 29.12.2016 and also based on the order passed by this Court dated 30.04.2013, in W.P.(MD) No. 11921 of 2011. 19.1. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, initially, the petitioner was selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable, but, his appointment order was kept pending due to pendency of criminal case, which was ended in acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. He filed revision for hon'ble acquittal and the same was also allowed. Thereafter, he made a representation stating the above facts, but his claim was rejected by G.O.(2D) No. 334, dated 26.09.2011 on the ground that he had not mentioned about the pendency of criminal case during police verification. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 11921 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 30.04.2013. Thereafter, despite repeated representations, his candidature was not considered. Hence, this Writ Petition. 20. In W.P.(MD) No. 4528 of 2019, the petitioner applied for the post of Police Band Party in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in 2007, pursuant to which, he was called for medical examination and fitness test in 2008. While so, he received a communication dated 27.05.2013 stating that he was involved in a criminal case. On trial, he was acquitted of all the charges except under Section 323 IPC, in which, he was sentenced till the rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence. Hence, he filed a revision in Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 613 of 2017 before this Court seeking declaration of his acquittal as 'Hon'ble acquittal'. On trial, he was acquitted of all the charges except under Section 323 IPC, in which, he was sentenced till the rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence. Hence, he filed a revision in Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 613 of 2017 before this Court seeking declaration of his acquittal as 'Hon'ble acquittal'. This Court in the said revision passed an order stating that if at all, the petitioner wants to rely on the order of acquittal for his employment, the appointing authority should look into the judgment in its entirety and find out whether the acquittal is honourable or not for the purpose of employment. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.03.2018 to the respondents to consider his appointment, but, so far, no result is forthcoming. Hence, he is before this Court with the present Writ Petition. 21. On overall analysis of the facts and circumstances of each case, it is seen that the reason for rejection is more or less similar in nature, to say shortly, involvement in criminal case and the antecedents. 22. It is pertinent to note that the suppression of a material fact to be a vitiating factor. 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. 23. It is also to be noted that when the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case when the application form is filled up, is fatal, his subsequent disclosure will not cure the defect and the same would give right to the appointing authority to reject his candidature on the ground of suppression and antecedents. 24. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. 25. The issue at hand was elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar reported in 2018 (1) SCC 797 . The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read thus: "13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character. 14. ......... 15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took the decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per Guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee. 16. ........... 17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside." 26. The above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue raised herein. 27. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar reported in 2018 (1) SCC 797 , if the facts of the present cases are analysed, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other ground. The decision on the question of suitability of the candidates, in my considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. 28. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 2809 of 2017 is concerned, the petitioner challenging his rejection earlier filed a Writ Petition and the same was allowed, against which, a Writ Appeal was filed and the same was dismissed at the SR stage itself. Again, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking similar relief under the guise of Writ of Mandamus. 28. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 2809 of 2017 is concerned, the petitioner challenging his rejection earlier filed a Writ Petition and the same was allowed, against which, a Writ Appeal was filed and the same was dismissed at the SR stage itself. Again, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking similar relief under the guise of Writ of Mandamus. In my considered view, a second Writ Petition cannot be maintained, since the matter went upto the appeal stage and saw the light of the day and hence, the same stands dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek any other remedy by filing contempt petition or appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. 29. In respect of W.P.(MD) No. 4528 of 2019, the petitioner sought for a direction to appoint him to the post of Constable in Band Party. In my view, such Mandamus cannot be issued, since, in police force, the antecedents of the person is one of the most eligible criteria to be considered. In this case, though the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges, he was sentenced till the rising of Court under Section 323 IPC and the revision filed for hon'ble acquittal was disposed of with observation. When such kind of punishment is imposed, considering his antecedents, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 30. Insofar as the other Writ Petitions are concerned, the same stand dismissed. While dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Director General of Police is directed to make necessary amendments to the Rules, if any, in this regard. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.