Madras High Court
The Superintendent Of Police vs Suresh on 2 July, 2026
Author: S. M. Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam
WA No. 1717 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WA No. 1717 of 2026
The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Suresh
S/o.Murugesan,
D.No.8, Koothanur,
Mallikundam Post,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.
..Respondent(s)
To set aside the order passed in WP No.20396 of 2022 dated
23.08.2023, and allow the above Writ Appeal and thus render justice.
For Appellant(s): Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel
For Respondent(s):
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police
vs. Raj Kumar, reported in 2020 INSC 423 has held as follows:
“25. ……The fact appreciation by the High Court, and the
intensive scrutiny of the evidence, in the opinion of this court to
conclude that Deepa could not have been implicated in the__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026offence, based on inferences drawn under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is an exercise of overreach of judicial review
process.
26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess
the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent
evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or
illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a
candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts’ decision
suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of
determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This was
emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public
Service Commission held as follows:
“21. Now, comes the question with regard to
the selection of the candidates. Normally, the
recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot
be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or
serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts
cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the
recommendations of the Selection Committee like
the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to
the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as
a court of appeal to examine the selection of the
candidates nor is the business of the court to
examine each candidate and record its opinion.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can
sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal
records and constitute Selection Committee to
undertake this exercise. This power is not given to
the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that
the assessment of the Selection Committee is not
subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the
courts. One has to give credit to the Selection
Committee for making their assessment and it is not
subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of
the candidates, one may be held to be very good and
another may be held to be good. If this type of
interference is permitted then it would virtually
amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have
started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026Appellate Authority over the selection.”
27. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B.S. Mahajan8 this
court held that“12. … it is not the function of the court to hear
appeals over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of
the candi dates. Whether a candidate is fit for a
particular post or not has to be decided by the duly
constituted Selection Committee which has the
expertise on the subject. The court has no such
expertise. … in the present case the University had
constituted the Committee in due compliance with
the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of
experts and it selected the candidates after going
through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in
appeal over the selection so made and in setting it
aside on the ground of the so-called comparative
merits of the candidates as assessed by the court,
the High Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction.”
28. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M.
Sathiya Priya, it was iterated that
“The question as to how the categories are
assessed in light of the relevant records and as to
what norms apply in making the assessment, is
exclusively to be determined by the Selection
Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection
as per law is vested in the Selection Committee
and as the Selection Committee members have got
expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts
generally to interfere in such matters except in
cases where the process of assessment is vitiated
either on the ground of bias, mala fides or
arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to
hear the matters before it treating them as appeals
over the decisions of the Selection Committee and
to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates.
The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a
particular post or not has to be decided by the duly
constituted expert body i.e. the Selection
Committee.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026
29. Public service – like any other, pre-supposes that the
state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who
should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern
essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number
of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly
constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or
applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under
the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are
fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory
manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or
choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process
of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona
fides.
30. 15 The High Court’s approach, evident from its
observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears
to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves
petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a
broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken
seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This
court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to
condonation of the offender’s conduct, should not enter the
judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences,
like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault,
causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons),
of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or
hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the
concerned public employer, through its designated officials-
more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are
under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since
their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026
security.
2. In the case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep
Morya & Anr. reported in LL 2021 SC 494, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
as follows:
“The Court in judicial review is not concerned with the
decision per se. It is more anxious that the decision-
making process is not flawed. Circumstances, where the
Court would interfere with the merits of the decision, are
far too well settled to require any reiteration.”
3. In the recent judgment, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors. vs. Rajkumar Yadav reported in 2026 INSC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has made the following observations:
7. The necessary conclusion from the parameters and
principles summarised above, is that whether it is a question
of recruiting a person into the service or continuing him in
service or extending an employee some service benefit, his
criminal antecedents, involvement in criminal activity, the
conduct amounting to moral turpitude, registration of a
criminal case as well as nature of his acquittal in a criminal
case are all germane considerations to be applied. The
employer who would be acting through a screening
committee to sift such cases, has fairly a large realm of
freedom to act, though without becoming arbitrary.
7.1. The area of discretion vested with the screening
committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to
exclude a candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving
appointment. In a given case where the facts are stark, mere
involvement of a person in an alleged offence or in the act of
moral turpitude may become sufficient enough to apply it as
debilitating factor for such candidate to be offered__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026employment. Antecedents of a candidate play an important
role in the decision-making process by the screening
committee. This dictum would operate with greater rigour
when it comes to the recruitment and appointment to the
disciplined force like police.
7.2. The position of law was highlighted again in the
following observations by this Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan5,
‘…it is clear that a candidate to be
recruited to the police service must be worthy
of confidence and must be a person of utmost
rectitude and must have 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 completely exonerated.
Persons who are likely to erode the credibility
of the police ought not to enter the police
force.’ (Para 13)
7.2.1. It was further stated,
‘No doubt the screening committee
has not been constituted in the case
considered by this Court, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the
respondent, in the present case, the
Superintendent of Police has gone into the
matter. The Superintendent of Police is the
appointing authority. There is no allegation
of mala fides against the person taking the
said decision nor the decision is shown to be
perverse or irrational.’ (Para 13)
7.3. The domain of considering the fitness and
suitability of a candidate for the purpose of taking him in
service belongs to the employer. A host of relevant
consideration would legitimately find a place in the process
of such consideration by the employer to decide whether it is
feasible and advisable to offer employment to an aspirant.
Where the employer or the screening committee of the
employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject the
candidature by applying relevant considerations and has not
acted arbitrarily or whimsically, the courts have no role to
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026
interpose. Of course, a demonstrably mala fide approach by
the employer would give room to the courts to exercise the
power of judicial review.
8. In Mehar Singh (supra) and in Parvez Khan
(supra), this court opined that the decision of the screening
committee must be taken as final unless as 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 care for the candidate’s character.
9. But for the above limited considerations namely
arbitrariness, unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide
approach, the scope of judicial review on this score is
extremely limited. The courts are not expected to override
the wisdom of the employer in judging the suitability of a
candidate and in considering the relevance of the
antecedents of the candidate and would not substitute its
own view.
4. In view of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments,
this Court is inclined to admit the writ appeal.
Admit. Notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Post the matter after four weeks.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
02-07-2026
VSI (1/2)
To
Mr.Suresh
S/o.Murugesan,
D.No.8, Koothanur,
Mallikundam Post,
Mettur Taluk,Salem District.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1717 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
vsi
WA No. 1717 of 2026
02-07-2026
(1/2)
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
