JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in pursuance to the notification dated 25.05.2018 issued by the respondent Department. After having successfully passed the written examination as well as the physical verification test and the physical standard test, the petitioner was awaiting his appointment order but vide communication dated 18.12.2018 (Annex. 3) it was informed that his candidature has been rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him which fact was verified during the police verification process. Aggrieved against the said rejection, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case registered against him was of the year 2011 at which time he was a juvenile and therefore, the trial for the said offence was conducted by Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner. Counsel submitted that vide Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2015’) an umbrella protection had been granted to a juvenile and therefore, in light of the same, the protection ought to have been extended to him also. Counsel submitted that on the date of the passing of the impugned order i.e. 18.12.2018, he was under trial and no order had been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. He argued that even if it had been a case of conviction, the protection of Section 24 was to be granted to him as even in cases of conviction, the same cannot amount to a disqualification.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4321/2019, Nadeem Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Others decided on 01.05.2019; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11395/2015, Hanuman vs. State of Rajasthan and Others decided on 28.09.2016 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 88/2017 Nirmal Kumar Vishnoi vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others decided on 26.10.2017.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to the protection of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 as on the date of the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was under trial only. He submitted that Section 24 talks of “a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act” and admittedly, in the present matter as there had been no final adjudication by the Juvenile Justice Board, the same would not fall within the category of “has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act.” He argued that the matter where a juvenile is undergoing trial i.e. he has neither been convicted nor been acquitted, would not fall within the parameters of Section 24 and hence, the protection of the same would not be available to him.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that all the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are those wherein the juvenile had been acquitted and therefore, the Court came to his rescue.

6. In the present case, the offence is punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which by its very nature is a heinous crime and therefore, protection of Section 24 cannot be granted. He further argued that in the present matter even the Juvenile Justice Board declined to grant probation to the petitioner and therefore too, the petitioner was not entitled to any relaxation.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302/201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appeal against the same had also been rejected. As clear on record, the revision against the same is pending before the High Court and the application for suspension of sentence is pending till date. But a bare reading of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear that the same provides for no distinction bet