IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a juvenile's conviction should not be a disqualification for future employment, as per Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that their writ petition may kindly be allowed:

(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner on the post of constable pursuant to the notification dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure-2).

(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents further be directed to entitle the petitioner with all consequential benefits form the date of persons lower in merit to the petitioner was accorded appointment including monitory benefits; and

(iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be refrained from rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as a result of the criminal case filed against the petitioner when he was a minor, and

(iv) Any other subsequent order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, and

(v) Any other appropriate order or relief which their Hon’ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of their case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that in the year 2020, when the petitioner was a minor, one FIR was registered against him under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examinations Act, 1992. Thereafter, the concerned Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted the trial and passed the order dated 14.09.2022, whereby the petitioner was convicted, and in that connection, was directed to remain on probation for a period of six months, subject to furnishing of a bond of Rs.5,000/- to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain his good conduct in the society, and the learned JJB further extend to the petitioner the benefit of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to the effect of removal of the said conviction order as disqualification.

2.1. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 29.10.2021 for the post of Constable in various districts; the petitioner applied for the post in question and at time of filling the application under the head of character details i.e. Whether any FIR has ever been lodged against you? In answer of that question, the petitioner stated “No”; the respondents conducted the examination as per the schedule. Thereafter, on 17.11.2022, the respondents declared the result for appointment on the post in question and the petitioner was declared successful therein and secured his name in the merit list so prepared.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for documents verification, which were duly verified by the respondents. On 02.05.2022, the respondents issued a press note regarding the waiting list for the post in question, but the petitioner’s candidature for the post in question was neither accepted nor rejected by that time. Thereafter, the petitioner was verbally informed that his candidature’s was not considered for the post in question because of the aforementioned criminal case and the petitioner sent a mail as well as submitted a representation before the respondents in this regard, but no response was received by him from the side of the respondents.

2.3. As per the additional affidavit filed on behalf the petitioner in the present petition, the respondents vide order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure-11) rejected the petitioner’s candidature for appointment on the post in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of registration of the criminal case, the petitioner was minor and the trial was conducted by the learned JJB, wherein while passing the order, the learned JJB extended to the petitioner the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 by removing the disqualification of such conviction