Krishna Kumar S/O Shri Akhai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6359 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6359 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 27 September, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Krishna Kumar S/O Shri Akhai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 September, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9001/2021
Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Akhai Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Bangarra, Post Kot, P.s. Garhi Bajna, Tehsil Bayana,
District Bharatpur.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Rajasthan,
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.      The    Inspector         General         Of     Police     (Recruitment),
        Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.      The Commandant, 6Th Battalion, Rac, Dholpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Naruka on behalf of Mr. Rupin Kala, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

27/09/2022

In pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.12.2019, the

petitioner applied for the post of Constable. After being successful

in the written examination, the petitioner was called for physical

efficiency test. Thereafter, the respondents have prepared the final

merit list and the petitioner was declared successful candidate and

the name of the petitioner was shown in the final select list which

was issued by the respondents. However, the respondents have

not allowed to him to join.

Counsel further submits that in reply to writ petition reason

shown for not giving him appointment was due to registration of a

(2 of 4) [CW-9001/2021]

criminal case against him and the said criminal case was

registered against the petitioner in the year 2012 when the

petitioner was juvenile and the Juvenile Justice Board vide order

dated 03.11.2016 acquitted the petitioner. Counsel further

submits that admittedly, at the time of registration of the criminal

case against him as well as at the time of passing of the judgment

by the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner was juvenile,

therefore, the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner's

appointment on the said ground is not sustainable.

In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Bishnoi, reported in (2020) 1

SCT 229, wherein paras No.8 & 9, it has been held as under:-

"8. In the present case, the complaint/FIR lodged against the respondent was to the effect that when he was a minor, he had teased a girl a few times and went to the extent of catching hold of her hand. However, the girl and her parents finally decided to pardon the respondent by not giving any evidence against him, resulting in the acquittal of the respondent. In the aforesaid facts, even if the aforesaid is found to be true, it cannot be said that the respondent had committed such a crime, which would be covered under the definition of moral turpitude, specially when the respondent is said to have committed thy alleged offence when he was a minor.

9. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30.06.2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 05.09.1991. 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

(3 of 4) [CW-9001/2021]

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, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted , the same should be obliterated , so that there is not 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, Stage Government, 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:

(xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances.

In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a minor when the charges had been framed against him of offences under Sections 354,447 and 509 of IPC. It is also not disputed that he was acquitted of the charg3es, 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."