High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1351 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manik Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 31.10.2018 (ANNEXURE-2) passed by respondent no.4. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to send the petitioner for training and issue appointment letter for the purpose of seniority only from the period which his batch of selected candidates were given appointment." 2.
Legal Reasoning
present case is covered by the law laid down by this Court in Shivam Maurya (supra). 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be seen that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in the recruitment process of Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2015. During recruitment process, petitioner has submitted an affidavit with regard to having no criminal antecedents, however on verification, it was found a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner. The affidavit filed by the petitioner sworn that no police investigation is pending against the petitioner nor the petitioner has been arrested in any criminal case nor the petitioner has been challaned in any criminal case. On the strength of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, petitioner's candidature was rejected by the respondent authority. The criminal case pending under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was tried by the Juvenile Justice -4- Board, Azamgarh and by judgment dated 6.9.2022, petitioner was acquitted. Copy of the judgment has been filed by the
Arguments
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2015. The petitioner during the process submitted an affidavit that no criminal case was lodged against the petitioner. On subsequent verification, affidavit of the petitioner was found to be incorrect and a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was found to be registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment dated 6.9.2022 to submit that the aforesaid criminal proceedings resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the First -2- Information Report was lodged on 6.10.2013 and at that point of time, petitioner was minor and was declared as minor and was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh under the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He submits that the petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the ground that petitioner has not disclosed his criminal antecedents at the time of filing of affidavit during the recruitment process and it was subsequently found that criminal case was pending against the petitioner on verification by the respondent authorities. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in accordance with Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015), no disqualification can be attached to the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act against a juvenile. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is juvenile, therefore, criminal proceedings would not vitiate the selection of the petitioner to the post in question. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2020 (5) ADJ 6. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable and during the recruitment process, petitioner has submitted an affidavit that neither criminal proceedings have ever been lodged against the petitioner nor any criminal proceedings is pending consideration. The aforesaid fact on verification by the respondent authority it was found that a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was lodged against the -3- petitioner and as such, candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the concerned authority. He submits that true disclosure has not made by the petitioner as such candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 6. On a pointed query being made to learned Standing Counsel as to Section 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which remove the disqualification attached even to conviction and in the present case, acquittal of the petitioner by the Juvenile Justice Board, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the Section 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Learned Standing Counsel also does not dispute the fact that the
Decision
petitioner as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by learned Standing Counsel. 8. Once the petitioner was declared as juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board and the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act was carried on and the petitioner was subsequently acquitted then in accordance with the mandate under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, no disqualification can be said to have been occurred to the petitioner. The judgment of this Court in Shivam Maurya (supra) is applicable in the present case. In this respect, observation made in the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow: "7. The appellant-petitioner at the time of lodging of the said F.I.R was a juvenile. A juvenile has been defined in Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The same is extracted herein below:- "(k) "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;" 8. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 reads as under:- "19. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. (2) The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period prescribed under the rules, as the case may be." 9. Since the appellant-petitioner was under the age of 18 at the time of lodging of the said F.I.R he had to be treated as a juvenile in conflict with law. A "juvenile in conflict with law" has also been defined under Section 2 (l) of the Act of 2000. The same reads as under:- -5- "(l) "juvenile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date f commission of such offence;" 10. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 has been incorporated in order to give a juvenile an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past. It thus provides that a juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act. A "juvenile" on the date when the alleged offence has been committed is required to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which declares that all criminal charges against individuals who are described as "juvenile in conflict with law" be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. If a conviction is recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 19 (1) of the Act of 2000 specifically stipulates that juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further Section 19 (2) of the Act of 2000 contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing all the relevant records of such conviction to be removed after expiry of the period of appeal or reasons as prescribed under the rules as the case may be. 11. At the present moment it will not be out of place to mention that in the present case the Juvenile Justice Board while giving its judgment and order dated 07.07.2018 being conscious of the provision of Section 19 of the Act of 2000 directed that the records or papers will be dealt with as per the provisions of Rule 99 of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The said Rule is extracted herein below:- "99. Disposal of records or documents.-- The records or documents in respect of a juvenile or a child or a juvenile in conflict with law shall be kept in a safe place for a period of seven years and no longer, and thereafter be destroyed by the Officer-in-Charge or Board or Committee, as the case may be." 12. Section 21 of the Act of 2000 prohibits publication of the name of the "juvenile in conflict with law" with the object to protect a juvenile from adverse consequences on account of his conviction for an offence committed as a juvenile. The same reads as under:- "21. Prohibition of publication of name, etc., of juvenile involved in any proceeding under the Act.- (1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, new-sheet or visual media of any inquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law under this Act shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the juvenile nor shall any picture of any such juvenile be published: -6- Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the juvenile. (2) Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees." 13. The sensitivity in matters relating to a juvenile or child or juvenile in conflict with law was deep embedded in the legislation as is apparent from Chapter II of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 therein gives in detail the fundamental principles to be followed in administration of the Rules. 14. The said Act is a beneficial legislation. The principles of such beneficial legislation are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of this statute. The concealment of the pendency of criminal case against the appellant-petitioner was of no consequence. As per the requirement of law a conviction in an offence will not be treated as a disqualification for a juvenile. The records of the case pertaining to his involvement in a criminal matter are to be obliterated after a specified period of time. The intention of the legislature is clear that in so far as juveniles are concerned their criminal records is not to stand in their way in their lives. The cancellation of the candidature of the appellant- petitioner was thus bad. The authority concerned failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act of 2000. The cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner goes contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 2000. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 protects a juvenile and any stigma attached to his conviction is also removed. The Act of 2000 does not envisage incarceration of a juvenile which clearly shows that the intention and object was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and decent civilised life. It provides him an opportunity to mend his life for the future. 15. We thus hold that the authority concerned fell in complete error in not extending the benefit of Act of 2000 to the appellant- petitioner particularly when there are specific provisions provided therein to take care of a juvenile being implicated, tried and / or convicted in a criminal matter. We thus extend the benefit provided under Section 19 of the Act of 2000 to the appellant-petitioner. 16. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 is allowed and the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the District Nodal Officer, Recruitment Centre, Azamgarh is set aside. The respondent no. 6 is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order with all consequential benefits except for back wages following the principle of no work and no pay." -7- 9. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is applicable in the present case, as the petitioner was juvenile at that point of time when the offence was committed and as such, the benefit of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is also extended to the petitioner. 10. It is further to be noted that the petitioner in the criminal proceeding was acquitted by order dated 6.9.2022 and the Juvenile Justice Board in it's aforesaid order has issued following directions :- "कि(cid:2)शोर न्याय (बाल(cid:2)ों (cid:2)ी देखरेख व संर्ቌण) अधि(cid:24)कि(cid:25)यम 2015 (cid:2)ी (cid:24)ारा 24 (cid:2)ो दृकि(cid:28)गत रखते हुए कि(cid:2)सी अन्य किवधि(cid:24) में कि(cid:2)सी बात (cid:2)े होते हुए ऐसा (cid:2)ोई कि(cid:2)शोर जि’स(cid:25)े (cid:2)ोई अपरा(cid:24) कि(cid:2)या है और जि’स(cid:2)े बारे में अधि(cid:24)कि(cid:25)यम (cid:2)े उपबन्(cid:24)ों (cid:2)े आ(cid:24)ी(cid:25) (cid:2)ाय-वाही (cid:2)ी ’ा चु(cid:2)ी है , कि(cid:2)सी बात (cid:2)ी कि(cid:25)ह-रता, यकिद (cid:2)ोई हो, ्ቇस्त (cid:25)हीं होगा, ’ो ऐसी किवधि(cid:24) (cid:2)े अ(cid:24)ी(cid:25) अपरा(cid:24) (cid:2)ी दोषजिस्ቍ से संल्ሿ है तथा यह भी आदेशिशत कि(cid:2)या ’ाता है कि(cid:2) अशिभलेख या दस्तावे’ (cid:2)ा कि(cid:25)पटा(cid:25) कि(cid:2)शोर न्याय (बाल(cid:2)ों (cid:2)ी देखरेख व संर्ቌण) (cid:2)े आदश- कि(cid:25)यमावली 2019 में वቓኌणत कि(cid:25)यम 14 (cid:2)े दृकि(cid:28)गत ही कि(cid:2)ये ’ाएंगे। कि(cid:2)शोर न्याय (बाल(cid:2)ों (cid:2)ी देखरेख एवं संर्ቌण) अधि(cid:24)कि(cid:25)यम, 2015 (cid:2)ी (cid:24)ारा 74 (cid:2)े दृकि(cid:28)गत उपयु -्ሹ कि(cid:2)शोर (cid:2)े सम्बन्(cid:24) में कि(cid:2)सी ’ांच (cid:2)ी (cid:2)ोई रिरपोट- कि(cid:2)सी समाचार प्ቔ या दूरदश-(cid:25) आकिद पर ्ቚसारण/्ቚ(cid:2)ाश(cid:25) कि(cid:25)षेधि(cid:24)त कि(cid:2)या ’ाता है। कि(cid:2)शोर न्याय (बाल(cid:2)ों (cid:2)ी देखरेख एवं संर्ቌण) अधि(cid:24)कि(cid:25)यम, 2015 (cid:2)ी (cid:24)ारा -्ሹ कि(cid:2)शोर (cid:2)े सम्बन्(cid:24) में पुलिलस चरिर्ቔ ्ቚमाण -प्ቔ (cid:2)े 74(2) (cid:2)े दृकि(cid:28)गत उपयु ्ቚयो’(cid:25) (cid:2)े लिलए या अन्यथा उस बाल(cid:2) (cid:2)े कि(cid:2)सी अशिभलेख (cid:2)ा ऐसे मामलों में ्ቚ(cid:2)ट(cid:25) (cid:25)हीं (cid:2)रेगी , ’हां मामले (cid:2)ो समा् कि(cid:2)या ’ा चु(cid:2)ा है या उसे कि(cid:25)स्तारिरत कि(cid:2)या ’ा चु(cid:2)ा है।" 11. As such, no disqualification on account of petitioner being subjected to criminal proceedings can be attached against petitioner more particularly in view of the acquittal order dated 6.9.2022 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.10.2018 is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the joining of the petitioner on the post in question unless there is any other legal impediment within a -8- period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Order Date :- 7.4.2023 D. Tamang Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad