JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dt. 2.12.2018 (Annex. 10) passed by the respondents, whereby, the petitioner has been held ineligible for appointment to the post of Constable (General).

2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that: pursuant to the advertisement to the post of Constable (General), the petitioner applied and was subjected to written examination, PST & PET, which the: petitioner cleared and stood in the select list for District Bikaner (Annex. 7). However, the petitioner was held ineligible by order dt. 2.12.2018 (Annex. 10) on account of the fact that the petitioner had undergone a trial for offences under Sec. 302, 323/34 IPC before the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur, wherein, by judgment dt. 19.12.2015, the petitioner was acquitted, however, it was observed by the Superintendent of Police in the order impugned that as the petitioner has been acquitted for lack of evidence and the allegations against him were not trivial in nature but were serious in nature, he was ineligible for appointment.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner was a juvenile when he underwent the trial for the alleged offences, wherein, he was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board by its order dt. 19.12.2018 (Annex. 9). It is submitted that action of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible is contrary to the express provisions of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ('the Act of 2015') and that the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be justified.

4. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Hanuman vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ No. 11395/2015, decided on 28.9.2016 (Annex. 11).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a bare perusal of the judgment of Juvenile Justice Board would indicate that for lack of evidence, the petitioner was acquitted of serious offences under Sec. 302, 323/34 IPC and, therefore, the respondents were justified in holding him ineligible.

6. Further submissions were made that in the judgment relied on by the petitioner in the case of Hanuman (supra), no charge was framed against the petitioner therein, and, therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement the name of the petitioner appeared in the select list, however, by impugned order dt. 2.12.2018 on account of the fact that the petitioner had suffered a trial before the Juvenile Justice Board, wherein, he was acquitted and as the charges leveled against him were of serious nature, he was held ineligible.

9. The respondents have apparently not taken into consideration the effect of Section 24 of the Act of 2015.

10. The relevant provision of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under:-

"24. Removal of disqualification on the finds of an offence.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law:

Provided that in case to a child who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years and is found to be in conflict with law by the Children's Court under clause (I) of sub-Section 19, the provisions of sub-Section (1) shall not apply."

11. A perusal of the above provision reveal that the same removes the disqualification on the findings of an offence recorded against a juvenile i.e. even if a child has been convicted of an offence, he would not suffer disqualification. In the present case, even the conviction has not taken place and the petitioner has been acquitted.

12. In the case of Hanuma