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 conviction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Review Application has been filed under Order 47, Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to review the order of this Court dated 11.01.2019 passed in W.A. No. 2759 of 2018.)

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

1. This is a Review Petition filed by the State to revise the order passed in W.A.No.2759 of 2018, dated 11.01.2019 by this Court.

2. It is a case of the Review Applicant/State that the Respondent herein who is the Writ Petitioner/Rajeshkumar from Villupuram District was selected as Police Constable. He had suppressed the fact that there was criminal case against him. In the application form, for the Post of Police Constable, there were columns regarding pending criminal cases or cases in which the candidates were involved. In those columns, the Respondent/Writ Appellant/Candidate had stated “no case pending”.

3. Before admitting the candidate, after the selection, on verification by the Police, it was found that the Respondent/Writ Appellant was involved in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 355, 353 and 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.471 of 2013 on the file of the Ulundurpet Police Station, Villupuram District. Therefore, the Inspector of Police of Ulundurpet Police Station had sent a report regarding adverse remarks against the Respondent/Writ Appellant.

4. Based on the said adverse remarks against the Respondent/Writ Appellant, even though he got selected through the written test and the physical test, his name was not considered and the rejection was informed to him. Aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.7879 of 2018. The learned Single Judge accepting the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for the State/Superintendent of Police, Villupuram had dismissed the Writ Petition.

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the Writ Court, the Writ Petitioner had filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2759 of 2018. The Writ Appeal No.2759 of 2018 was allowed directing the authority concerned to appoint the appellant as Grade-II Police Constable and send him for training along with the batch of police constables, if any undergoing training or in future.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment made in the Writ Appeal, the State has filed this Review Application seeking to revise the judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.2759 of 2018 dated 11.01.2019.

7. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the Review Applicant/State contended that as per Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, suppression regarding pending criminal case is a disqualification.

8. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1300 [Satish Chandra Yadav -vs- Union of India and others] wherein it has been held as under:

“Service Law – Probation/Probationer – Termination of Service – Suppression of material information – Board principles of law applicable to such cases – Enumerated – On facts held, termination of service of CRPF probationer for suppression of material information of pending criminal case justified.”

9. Here the fact is different. The Respondent/Writ Appellant was a juvenile on the date of alleged criminal case. The criminal case ended in acquittal. Subsequently, the Respondent/Writ Appellant had filed Crl.R.C.No.39 of 2018 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned I Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ulundurpettai, Villupuram District, passed in C.C.No.12 of 2014 dated 11.03.2014 to convert the acquittal as honorable acquittal on the ground that the Respondent/Writ Appellant was a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence i.e., he was aged 17 years and 6 months. In the above-said Criminal Revision Case, in the concluding paragraph, the learned Single Judge of this Court had observed as follows:

“5. The decision of the Apex court in Shah Nawaz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2011 SC 3107] explains t