The Rajasthan High Court has observed that successful candidate cannot be denied the job by citing his juvenile criminal record.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit dismissed State's appeal against single-judge order whereby writ petition filed by the respondent-constable was accepted in which he had challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Constable on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him, which fact came to light during police verification.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent-candidate assailed the rejection order on the ground that the criminal case, which was registered against him, was of the year 2011, at which point of time, he was a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and as such, by virtue of the mandate of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was entitled to protective umbrella against use of criminal antecedents in any future recruitment process.
It was argued that on the date of passing of the impugned order, the case was under trial and the writ petitioner was not convicted for any offence. Additionally, it was contended that even in a case of conviction, protection of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 was required to be extended to the writ petitioner as the factum of conviction could not act as a disqualification as per the clear language of Section 24 of the Act of 2015.
State's argument was that the respondent-writ petitioner was later on, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC amongst others, which being a crime of heinous nature, he could not have been considered for appointment on the sensitive post of Police Constable.
The single-judge bench in its ruling considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances; prevailing legal position and held that Section 24 of the Act of 2015 includes in its ambit, the cases of juveniles, who have been convicted and protects such juveniles from any disqualification and thus, a juvenile, who is facing trial, stands on a better footing and would definitely be entitled to protective umbrella of Section 24 of the Act of 2015.
Reliance was placed on SC Ruling in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2016 Latest Caselaw 510 SC to held that the respondent writ petitioner was entitled to protection of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 and as such, rejection of his candidature in subject selection process on the ground of the registration and proceedings of the criminal case was invalid.
Senior Advocate-cum-AAG has vehemently and fervently contended that the respondent writ petitioner had applied for post of constable in the highly disciplined Police Force and that the department has absolute discretion to reject the candidature of a person having criminal antecedents. It was his contention that the learned Single Bench was not justified in applying the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 because the criminal case against the respondent writ petitioner was registered in the year 2011 and since the provisions of the Act of 2015 are not retrospective, the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 could not have been extended to protect the respondent against disqualification entailing from the pendency of a criminal case for the heinous offence of murder.
He further submitted that after rejection of the candidature of the respondent by order dated 18.12.2018, the Juvenile Justice Board concluded the enquiry and held the respondent guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 & 201 IPC. Appeal too was rejected and as such, the learned Single Bench was not justified in exercising the powers of judicial review so as to interfere in the just and rightful decision of the employer in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner, he averred.
High Court's Observation
The Court at the outset noted that he was a young boy of about 14 and half years on the date of the incident and thus, enquiry was held against him in the Juvenile Justice Board concerned as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Deliberating on the impugned judgement, the Court stated that the case of the prosecution was based purely on circumstantial evidence. It pointed out that the allegation of last seen together was not incorporated in the first report of the incident given to the police.
"A perusal of the Board’s judgment would reveal that the respondent herein was held guilty of the charge purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and that too, the sole circumstance of his last seen. However, the allegation of last seen together was not incorporated in the first report of the incident given to the police, i.e. the Missing Person Report (Ex.P/14), wherein it was alleged by the complainant Deepdaan that his son Master 'H' left home on 22.05.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. saying that he was going out to play, but did not return till lodging of the report. It is thus, an admitted position that the allegation regarding the deceased being lastly seen in the company of the respondent was not incorporated in the Missing Person Report."
Whether or not this significant omission would invalidate the prosecution allegations, would be for the competent court to consider, before which the judgment of conviction is assailed, but we definitely are of the prima facie opinion that this allegation has been incorporated in the prosecution case through a sheer improvement, the Court noted.
Referring to Section 24 of the Act of 2015, the Court established that the record of conviction of the child in conflict, cannot be preserved and has to be destroyed and as a direct consequence, any disqualification entailing from the conviction would have to be ignored and cannot act to the detriment of the child in conflict with law in any manner, which would include a selection process for public employment.
"Employer is prohibited by law from referring to or taking in consideration the judgment of conviction so as to deprive a successful candidate, who was a child in conflict with law at some point of time from being employed in Government service," it ruled.
CASE TITLE: State Of Rajasthan vs Bhawani Shankar Moorh
CASE DETAILS: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 816/2022
CORAM: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments