Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Jitendra Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
i) The impugned order dated 09.07.2021 (Ann.5) declare illegal and also may be quashed and set aside.
ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable GD in GRP, Jodhpur with all consequential benefits.
iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 04.12.2019 under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 for the post of Constable for various districts of the State. The petitioner, being eligible, submitted his application, in pursuance of the said advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioner participated i
No cases are identified as bad law. The provided case law list contains only one entry, which appears to be a statement or holding rather than a decision that has been overruled, reversed, or criticized in subsequent jurisprudence.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None: There are no indications that the case has been explicitly followed or affirmed in later decisions.
[Distinguished / Explained]
None: The list does not include any references to the case being distinguished or explicitly limited in scope.
[Criticized / Questioned]
None: There is no language indicating that the case has been criticized or questioned.
[Overruled / Reversed / Abrogated]
None: The case has not been overruled, reversed, or abrogated based on the information provided.
Since the list contains only a single case law statement without any subsequent judicial treatment or references, there is no further categorization possible based on treatment patterns.
The treatment status of the provided case law is entirely unclear. The statement appears to be a legal principle or holding, but there is no information on whether it has been upheld, challenged, or overruled in later decisions. Without additional context or references to subsequent case law, the treatment remains uncertain.
**Source :** Union Of India VS Ramesh Bishnoi - Supreme Court
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.
Juveniles cannot be disqualified from public employment due to past convictions, as per legislative intent to protect their future prospects.
Juveniles in conflict with law cannot face disqualification in future employment opportunities due to prior convictions as per Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing that a juvenile in conflict with law should not suffer any disqualification....
Denial of appointment – Qualification - A juvenile, who, has committed an offence and has been dealt with under provisions of said Act of 2000, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to....
There cannot be any disqualification on a juvenile in conflict with law.
The court affirmed that juvenile convictions should not hinder future opportunities, as mandated by Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015.
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, prohibits stigma against juveniles in conflict with the law, emphasizing the protection and rehabilitation of juveniles, and the prohibition of stigma even in cases of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
