1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia impugning the action of the respondents in not permitting him to join the duties, despite having an order of appointment in his hands.

2. Shorn of unnecessary and unwarranted details, the facts appertain for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected by the respondent -Employee State Insurance Corporation, as he was declared successful in the result of recruitment announced on 14.07.2016.

3. The petitioner was selected for the post of Multi - Tasking Staff at merit position No.1, in the category of outstanding sportsman; for which an order of appointment vide memorandum dated 16.08.2016 came to be issued. The said memorandum was subject to document and credential verification of the candidates. When the petitioner was not offered joining or permitted to join for considerable time, he enquired about the reasons for the delay; only to learn that he would not be allowed to join, in wake of pendency of a criminal case against him.

4. In response to the writ petition, seeking appropriate direction/mandamus, the respondents have filed a reply, in which they have iterated their stand that the petitioner cannot be allowed to join the duties, pending a criminal case against him pursuant to the FIR No.128 dated 31.08.2010.

5. Mr. B.S. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is true that the FIR aforesaid had been lodged against the petitioner, which is being tried by the Court. He nonetheless pointed out that as the petitioner was juvenile at the time of alleged commission of the offence, his trial is being conducted by the Juvenile Justice Court, Bhilwara, as mandated by the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Juvenile Justice Act).

6. Advancing the arguments further, he submitted that as the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the purported commission of the offence, by virtue of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the disqualification, if any, arising out of pendency of the criminal case cannot be taken into consideration. Section 19 of the Act of 2000, is being reproduced hereunder:-

“Section 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.”

7. Without prejudice to the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India) and contended that the petitioner, who has been offered appointment on the post of Multi - Tasking Staff, the lowest in cadre (equivalent to Peon), pendency of criminal case cannot be treated to be a serious disqualification, dis-entitling him to be appointed.

8. Mr. M.R. Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner has concealed the factum of pendency of criminal case against him and looking to the charges levelled against him, viz. Section 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner cannot be said to be held to be candidate possessing good character and moral. In light of these submissions, Mr. Pareek argued that the respondents are justified in not allowing the petitioner to join the duties.

9. In response to the arguments advanced by Mr. Charan in light of Section 19 of the Juvenile Act, 2000, Mr. Pareek submitted that after advent of provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the provisions of earlier Act can neither be relied nor the benefit of Section 19 of the Act of 2000 can be claimed by the petitioner.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after p