Point of Law: Section 19 of the said Act of 2000 clearly says that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile, who, has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of the said Act of 2000, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.04.2020 passed by the respondent No.4-I.G.-cum-Principal Chief Security Commissioner/RPF N.C. Railway, Prayagraj. The impugned order cancels the appointment of the petitioner on the foot that he had suppressed information about the criminal case pending against him while filling up the Attestation Form.

2. Sri Bholeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the affirmation made by the petitioner in the Attestation Form and non disclosure of the criminal case pending against him are not disputed. He, however, contends that the respondent No.4 misdirected himself in law by overlooking the fact that the petitioner was being tried for an offence as a juvenile. The case of the petitioner is covered by the law laid down by this Court in Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported at 2019 (4) ADJ 316. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, Sri Anand Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the Railways -respondents submits that the pendency of a criminal case and the suppression of the same in the Attestation Form by the petitioner are admitted. The offence against the petitioner was not of a trivial nature, and moreover the petitioner had been convicted by the learned trial court. He is not suitable for appointment in a disciplined force like the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and his candidature was lawfully invalidated. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.

4. Heard Sri Bholeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy are established beyond the pale of any dispute. The facts being undisputed, the controversy turns on pure questions of law. No useful purpose will be served by exchange of pleadings and prolonging the litigation. The matter is being decided finally with consent of parties.

6. The petitioner applied for appointment as Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in response to the Employment Notice No.01/2018. After his empanelment the petitioner affirmed an Attestation Form regarding his character and antecedents. He did not disclose any pending criminal case in the Attestation Form. The Police Verification Report (PVR) sent by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, U.P. to the respondents authorities revealed that a criminal case bearing in NCR No.197/13 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, Police Station-Jhangaha, District-Gorakhpur was registered against the petitioner.

7. The competent authority found that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the criminal case pending against him to secure a government job. On this foot by order dated 03.01.2020 the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

8. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature, the petitioner instituted a writ petition registered as Writ-A No.2511 of 2020 (Shri Kishan Paswan Vs. Union of India and others) before this Court. The writ petition was decided by the judgment and order rendered by this Court on 14.02.2020. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

“Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of observations made above and the law laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra), within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, along with fresh representation and supporting documents. The impugned order will abide by the decision that shall be taken by respondent no. 2 in compliance of the instant order.”

9. In compliance of the judgment dated 14.02.2020 passed by this Court, the respondent No.4-I.G.-cum-Principal Chief Security Commissioner/RPF N.C. Railway, Prayagraj. revisited the controversy, but with the same result.