Juveniles cannot be disqualified from public employment due to past convictions, as per legislative intent to protect their future prospects.

Order :

For the welfare of a child, the burden of past mistakes must be lifted, offering him a fresh start to thrive, free from the weight of stigma. As nelson Mandela once said, "There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered."

The children deserve the chance to evolve and grow beyond their past, shaped not by previous errors but by their potential for the future. The shadows of past transgressions should be expunged, granting them the opportunity to lead a life unburdened by stigma and brimming with possibility.

Albert Einstein also reminded us, 'It is not that I'm so smart, but I stay with the questions much longer.' In the same way, children should be given the time and space to transform, with their future defining them, not their history. By fostering their growth, we allow them the freedom to rise above their past and realize the promise of tomorrow.

1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 06.05.2008 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that he has concealed about his involvement and conviction in a criminal case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Constable. Counsel submits that the petitioner was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him, and he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board for the said case whereby, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 457 & 380 I.P.C. Counsel submits that no sentence was awarded to the petitioner, but he was released on admonition, after his counselling, vide judgment dated 16.11.2004. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment could not lead to any disqualification for the petitioner in getting any public employment as he was a juvenile at the time of committing the offence and during trial. Counsel submits that under this belief, he applied and did not disclose this fact in the application form for getting appointment on the post of Constable.

3. Counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act of 2000"), a juvenile who has committed an offence, dealt under the provisions of this Act, shall not suffer any disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Counsel further submits that as per sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act of 2000, the Juvenile Justice Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after expiry of the period of appeal. Counsel submits that no appeal was submitted against the judgment of conviction of the petitioner and the petitioner was under the impression that his relevant record pertaining to his conviction was removed and under that bona fide belief, he did not disclose about the aforesaid judgment at the time of submission of his application form. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the appointment of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

4. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgment which are as follows:-

1. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Hooda reported in 2012 0 Supreme (Del)1313

2. Mukesh Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2017 0 Supreme (Del) 4442

3. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Vishnoi reported in 2019 19 (SCC) 710

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppo