In The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board & Ors. v. P. Manikandan, Madras High Court held that a candidate cannot be denied appointment on the ground of suppression of his involvement in a criminal case when he was unaware of the registration of the FIR at the relevant time.

The TNUSRB issued a notification inviting applications for various posts, including Sub-Inspector of Police. The respondent participated in the recruitment process and successfully cleared the written examination, certificate verification, physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test, and viva voce.

However, his candidature was subsequently rejected on the ground that he had suppressed his involvement in a criminal case. He filed a writ petition challenging the rejection, which was allowed, leading TNUSRB to file the present writ appeal.

State contended that recruitment to a uniformed service required a candidate to maintain a clean record and disclose all material information.

However, respondent submitted that although FIR had been registered, he had no knowledge of the case when he submitted his application. The case had been filed by a woman against his brother, alleging that he had promised to marry her, entered into a physical relationship with her, and subsequently refused to marry her. FIR also contained omnibus allegations against the respondent and his parents and siblings.

The police subsequently found that respondent was not involved in the alleged offence. After completion of the investigation, DSP filed a final report exonerating the respondent.

High Court noted that even where a criminal case was pending but was unknown to the candidate at the time of filling out the form, appointing authority must consider the seriousness of the alleged offence rather than mechanically cancelling the candidature.

Court further noted that department was aware that police had found respondent's implication to be false and had deleted his name from the final report.

Court also observed that an FIR is only an allegation and cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of guilt or as a conclusive determination of a person's character and suitability.

It held that a youth who has successfully cleared written examinations, physical tests, endurance tests, and interviews should not lose an employment opportunity merely because an FIR had been registered against him, particularly when he was unaware of it.

Therefore, High Court dismissed the appeal filed by TNUSRB.