Chennai:
The Madras High Court has observed that Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade will not come under the purview of Tamil Nadu District Police Act and Tamil Nadu City Police Act as it is not a police force.
Justice S Nagamuthu after hearing petitions put forth by S Kirubakar and M Damodaran who challenged the selection process under Special Police Youth Brigade, rejected arguments of the Additional Government Pleader that the Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade is a police force and stated that so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned there are two enactments known as “The Tamil Nadu District Police Act 1859” and” The Chennai City Police Act 1888” under which Police Force has been reorganized and which are the instruments for the prevention and detection of Crimes.
Two petitioners-- S Kirubakar and M Damodaran have stated in their petitions before the court that they secured more than the required cut off marks in all the tests conducted for the post of constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade. But Kirubakar was not selected and Damodaran who got appointment and went to training later on was served with order of cancellation of appointment by the authorities.
While Kirubakar filed a writ petition challenging his non-selection, Damodaran filed writ petition challenging the cancellation order served on him. Both were not considered on the ground that they were involved in Criminal Cases. The case filed against Kirubakar was once for all closed as false and as on the date of application for the post there had been no criminal case pending against him. In the case of Damodharan on whom a criminal case was filed, it ended with an acquittal.
Justice S Nagamuthu directed the Uniform Services Selection Board to issue appointment order to S Kirubakar within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, he dismissed the petition filed by Damodharan and said that even though the case filed against him will not go to show that he has got a bad character so as to deprive him of employment. He is guilty of suppression of material fact of his involvement in the criminal Case he is disqualified for the appointment.
The Judge also observed that characterizing youth as unfit for public employment would amount stigmatizing them thereby infringing upon their right to live. The judge also stated that the Central and State governments till date have not laid down guidelines pertaining to the problems of rehabilitation of ex-convicts with emphasis on the need for their employment under the Government as discussed and deliberated in the “All India Seminar on Correctional Service” held at New Delhi long back in 1969
No comments:
Post a Comment