HC grants relief to man who was denied jail warden post over jallikattu case
A notification was published for recruitment of grade-II police constable/jail warden for 2022. At the time of application itself, Dinesh had disclosed that a criminal case was registered against him by the Sellur police in Madurai in 2017. However, the authorities rejected his candidature since his acquittal was on the benefit of doubt and therefore he is to be treated as involved in the criminal case as per the GO issued in 2008.
R Dinesh of Madurai applied for the post of jail warden and duly qualified all the necessary tests. He got provisionally selected for the post after certificate verification. The case ended in acquittal. In the present case, the allegation against the candidate is that he, along with a few others, unlawfully assembled during the jallikattu agitation, pelted stones at police personnel causing simple injuries to them and damaged vehicles. A criminal case was registered.
Challenging the rejection order, the petitioner filed a petition before the HC in 2024. The state govt as a policy decision chose to withdraw 308 such cases by a GO issued in February 2021. The judges observed that the candidate disclosed the criminal case against him in his application dated August 1, 2022, in a bona fide manner. His acquittal was in April 2022. the court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall be treated as ‘a person not involved in a criminal case’ as per the GO.
Madurai : Granting relief to a man whose candidature was rejected for the post of jail warden though the criminal case registered against him for participating in the jallikattu protest ended in acquittal, Madras high court upheld the order of a single judge which directed authorities to appoint him to the post. The single judge held that the criminal case was one that was filed against people who agitated in favour of jallikattu. Considering the cumulative circumstances, the single judge held that the benefit of the aforecited shall be extended to the candidate. The single judge quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to appoint Dinesh as jail warden. Challenging the order, the state preferred an appeal. The single judge was right in their conclusion to quash the order rejecting Dinesh’s candidature and direct the authorities to appoint him as jail warden, and nothing warrants interference with the same. The order of the single judge shall hold good, the judges observed and dismissed the appeal by the state.