Madras HC comes to rescue of fireman denied appointment for 12 yrsChennai: Coming to the rescue of a fireman denied appointment for 12 years to the post after provisional selection for allegedly suppressing registration of a criminal case against him, the Madras High Court yesterday directed
Chennai: Coming to the rescue of a fireman denied appointment for 12 years to the post after provisional selection for allegedly suppressing registration of a criminal case against him, the Madras High Court yesterday directed Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to appoint him as fireman within eight weeks.
Justice D Hariparanthaman gave the direction while disposing of a petition from S Sathiyaseelan.
Petitioner Sathiyaseelsan said he had applied for the job on a notification by the Board for the post for the year 1999-2000 and passed the test. He was provisionally selected, underwent a medical examination and was found fit.
However, he was not given appointment order while his batchmates, who were also similary selected, were given the orders and also sent for training. When he enquired about it, he was told he had supressed the registration of a criminal case against him in his application.
Sathiyaseelan contended he was not aware of the criminal case registered against him. There was a communal clash between in a particular area in Chidambaram and police had made enquiries with both groups. He was neither arrested nor detained in a police station, he added.
The judge said the Additional Government Pleader has produced a copy of the Investigating Officer's report which stated that the case was closed as ‘mistake of fact'.
He said the IO's report made it clear that the petitioner cannot be blamed for suppressing the fact relating to registration of the case. No evidence was adduced by the Board to conclude Sathyaseelsan was aware of this, the judge added.
Justice Hariparanthaman noted the petitioner had applied in January, 2000 but the FIR was registered only on May 4, 2000.
“The Investigating Officer gave the closure report on May 25, 2000, while the selection process got completed in 2012 and the petitioner's batch-mates were given appointment orders in November, 2002.
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”, the judge added.