SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(All) 408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Govind Mathur, CJ., Samit Gopal, J.
Shivam Maurya - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. - 1136 of 2018
Decided On : 10-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Siddharth Khare, Shri. Ashok Khare

Point of Law:
As per the requirement of law a conviction in an offence will not be treated as a disqualification for a juvenile.U.P.

Headnote:

U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow notified an appointment of police Constable and Constable in PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment, 2015 – Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the petitioner therein cannot be given benefit for suppression of an information despite specific question in the affidavit along with the application form / verification form as to whether he had been convicted by any court of law-Held, authority concerned failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act of 2000. The cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner goes contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 2000. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 protects a juvenile and any stigma attached to his conviction is also removed. The Act of 2000 does not envisage incarceration of a juvenile which clearly shows that the intention and object was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and decent civilised life. It provides him an opportunity to mend his life for the future – Respondent no. 6 is directed to reinstate the petitioner- Appeal allowed

Facts of the Case:

Candidature of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled on the ground of material concealment of pendency of a criminal case against him which was not disclosed in the affidavit / verification form, which is the impugned order in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

Finding of the Court:

Authority concerned failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act of 2000. The cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner goes contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 2000. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 protects a juvenile and any stigma attached to his conviction is also removed. The Act of 2000 does not envisage incarceration of a juvenile which clearly shows that the intention and object was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and decent civilised life. It provides him an opportunity to mend his life for the future – Respondent no. 6 is directed to reinstate the petitioner

Result: Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2018 passed in Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the petitioner therein cannot be given benefit for suppression of an information despite specific question in the affidavit along with the application form / verification form as to whether he had been convicted by any court of law. The said information as supplied by the petitioner was found to be incorrect by the authorities and as such the authorities concerned were well within their authority to cancel the candidature of the petitioner. The facts of the present matter are as follows:-

i. In the year 2015, the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow notified an appointment of police Constable and Constable in PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment, 2015.

ii. The appellant-petitioner applied in the same and on the basis of his academic qualifications he stood selected.

iii. The petitioner as was required to participate in a physical efficiency test who participated therein on the scheduled date and time and was declared qualified for the same.

iv. The appellant-petitioner was allotted district Deoria for training. He was required to file a declaration affidavit being a notarial affidavit / verification form which was filled by him which is dated 30.05.2018.

v. The appellant-petitioner vide communication dated 09.06.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh was required to participate in medical examination which was scheduled on 17.06.2018 where the appellant-petitioner participated and was declared fit and thus passed the said medical examination.

vi. Vide order dated 04.09.2018 the candidature of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled on the ground of material concealment of pendency of a criminal case against him which was not disclosed in the affidavit / verification form, which is the impugned order in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

3. A First Information Report was lodged on 28.06.2013 being Case Crime No. 173 of 2013 under Sections 147, 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kundrapur, District Azamgarh in which the appellant-petitioner was also named as an accused. The appellant-petitioner as was declared a juvenile, his case was taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh which vide order dated 07.07.2018 convicted the appellant and directed him to be kept under probation for a period of one year along with fine under Section 147 I.P.C. of Rs. 2000/-, under Section 323 I.P.C. of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 308 I.P.C. of Rs. 20,000/-, under Section 325 I.P.C. Rs. 10,000/-, under Section 504 I.P.C. of Rs. 1000/-and under Section 506 I.P.C. of Rs. 2000/-to be paid by the custodian of the appellant-petitioner in view of his committing the offence. It was further ordered that as per the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C., 50 % of the fine as realised shall be paid to the victim.

4. An order dated 04.09.2018 was passed by the District Nodal Officer, Recruitment Centre, Azamgarh cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he has filed a false affidavit / self-disclosure letter in which in Para 2 pertaining to the disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, the candidate has disclosed as follows:-

¼2½ ;g dh esjs fo:) dksbZ vkijkf/kd eqdnek@ekeyk esjh tkudkjh esa dHkh iathd`r ugha gqvk gS vkSj u gh dksbZ iqfyl foospuk (Investigation) yafcr gSA

The said information is incorrect as on verification it came to light that a criminal case is registered against him on which he has been released on probation for one year along with fine. The said information was intentionally concealed and the affidavit is based on false facts.

5. In the present case date of birth of the appellant-petitioner is 05.02.1997. The First Information Report was lodged o

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top