[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Panthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3231
1 WP-31193-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 31193 of 2024
SHIVAM PANTHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Pavan Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiraz Qureshi - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P/1),
whereby he has been denied compassionate appointment on the ground of his
alleged involvement in a criminal case.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the
petitioner's father, late Mr. Tulsiram Panthi, was working as a Head Constable in
the Police Department and expired on 28.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 05.06.2023. In the
attestation form, the petitioner disclosed that a criminal case was registered against
him at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha, for offences punishable under
Sections 354-D and 509 of the IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
He further disclosed that he was tried by JJ Board and was acquitted in the said
criminal case by judgment dated 13.11.2017.
3. The petitioner's case was placed before the Scrutiny Committee on
19.12.2023. The Scrutiny Committee opined that the offences, for which the
petitioner was tried, involved moral turpitude and, therefore, he was declared
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3231
2 WP-31193-2024
unsuitable for appointment on the post in question. Accordingly, the petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated
04.01.2024 (Annexure P/1). Challenging the aforesaid order, the present petition
has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the
ground that the petitioner was a minor on the date of commission of the alleged
offence and was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. He submitted that the
petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 13.11.2017. Learned counsel
contended that, being a juvenile, the petitioner's prosecution in the said criminal
case ought to have been overlooked while considering his candidature for
compassionate appointment. In support of his submission, reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of this Court in Deependra Kirar vs. State of
M.P. in W.P. No.6482/2024. Accordingly, prayer is made for setting aside the
impugned order and for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted
that the petitioner was tried for serious offences under Sections 354-D, 509, 507,
34 of the IPC, Section 66-A of the IT Act and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. It
was further contended that the offences involved moral turpitude and that the
petitioner was not honourably acquitted. It was argued that in view of the criminal
antecedents, the Screening Committee was competent to adjudge the petitioner's
suitability for appointment in the Police Department and its decision is not liable
to be interfered with in this writ petition in exercise of powers of judicial review.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for
appointment in view of his involvement in serious offence. The impugned order is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3231
3 WP-31193-2024
legal and valid and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
7. The fact that the petitioner was a minor on the date of commission of the
offence and was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, is not in disputed between the
parties. Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 provides for special protection to juveniles. The said provision came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ramesh
Bishnoi, reported in (2019)19 SCC 710. The Apex Court held in paragraphs 8 &
9 as under :
"8. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were
framed against the respondent, on 30-6-2009, the respondent was well
under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 5-9-1991. Firstly, it was
not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent
as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent,
resulting in his acquittal on 24-11-2011. Even if the allegations were
found to be true, then too, the respondent could not have been deprived
of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been
committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the
legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same
should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any
crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear
object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal
person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central
Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while
implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section
3, it is clearly provided as follows:
"3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start : All past records of any child
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3231
4 WP-31193-2024
under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in
special circumstances."
9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a
minor when the charges had been framed against him of the offences
under Sections 354, 447 and 509 IPC. It is also not disputed that he was
acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the
same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as
admittedly, he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed
and the charges had been framed against him. Section 3(xiv) provides
for the same and the exception of special circumstances does not apply
to the facts of the present case."
8. Further, at the time when offence in the case of Ramesh Bishnoi was
committed, the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) were in force. Section 19 of Act of 2000 provided as
under:-
" 1 9 . 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 as prescribed under the rules, as the case
may be."
9. From the language of Section 19 quoted above, it is seen that there is a
protection given to a juvenile irrespective of nature of offence allegedly
committed by him. Thereafter, the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were promulgated whereby by virtue of Section
111, the provisions of Act of 2000 were repealed. Section 24 of Act of 2015
provided similar protection like Section 19 of Act of 2000 but with certain riders.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3231
5 WP-31193-2024
However, it is seen that the alleged offence in this case was committed prior to
15.03.2014 whereas the Act of 2015 came in force with effect from 31.12.2015.
Thus, the present case would be governed by provisions of Section 19 of Act of
2000. 11. Thus, considering provisions of Section 19 of the Act and legal position
settled by Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bishnoi (supra), it has to be held that
the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case cannot be treated to be a
disqualification for his appointment.
10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 04.01.2024
(Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the
petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment, ignoring the aforesaid
criminal case. Necessary action be taken within a period of 90 days from the date
of submission of a certified copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
