Point of Law: Section 19, would make it clear that record of conviction of child in conflict, cannot be preserved and has to be destroyed.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Mehta, J.)

1. The instant intra court writ appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan questioning legality and validity of the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was accepted and the communication dated 18.12.2018, whereby the candidature of the respondent for the post of Constable pursuant to the notification dated 25.05.2018 was rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him, which fact came to light during police verification. The rejection of the candidature of the respondent writ petition was assailed on the ground that the criminal case, which was registered against him, was of the year 2011, at which point of time, he was a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2000") and as such, by virtue of the mandate of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2015"), the writ petitioner was entitled to protective umbrella against use of criminal antecedents in any future recruitment process. A ground was also put forth in the writ court that on the date of passing of the impugned order, the case was under trial and the writ petitioner was not convicted for any offence. Additionally, it was contended that even in a case of conviction, protection of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 was required to be extended to the writ petitioner as the factum of conviction could not act as a disqualification as per the clear language of Section 24 of the Act of 2015.

2. The respondents (appellants herein) contested the writ petition on the ground that the respondent writ petitioner was later on, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC amongst others, which being a crime of heinous nature, he could not have been considered for appointment on the sensitive post of Police Constable.

3. Learned Single Bench considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances; prevailing legal position and held that Section 24 of the Act of 2015 includes in its ambit, the cases of juveniles, who have been convicted and protects such juveniles from any disqualification and thus, a juvenile, who is facing trial, stands on a better footing and would definitely be entitled to protective umbrella of Section 24 of the Act of 2015. The learned Single Bench applied the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] to the facts of the case and held that the respondent writ petitioner was entitled to protection of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 and as such, rejection of his candidature in subject selection process on the ground of the registration and proceedings of the criminal case was invalid. The writ petition was allowed with these observations by the order dated 09.02.2022, which is assailed in this intra court appeal.

4. Shri Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Advocate-cum-AAG, assisted by Shri Nishant Bafna, representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the respondent writ petitioner had applied for post of constable in the highly disciplined Police Force and that the department has absolute discretion to reject the candidature of a person having criminal antecedents. It was his contention that the learned Single Bench was not justified in applying the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 because the criminal case against the respondent writ petitioner was registered in the year 2011 and since the provisions of the Act of 2015 are not retrospective, the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 could not have been extended to protect the respondent against disqualification entailing from the pendency of a criminal case for the heinous offence of murder. He further submitted that after rejection of the candidature of the respondent by order dated 1