Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Anuj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. 9594 of 2020
Decided On : 30-04-2021
U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 – Section 3\4 - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Section 25 - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 19,74,99 - Constitution of India,1950 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 - Rule 32,3,75,14 - Article 14,21,39,15 (3), 21(a), 45, 47, 39(e) and 39(f) - Appointment on post of Constable – Advertisement - petitioner was successful in the written examination and also qualified the physical standard test. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Constable in the PAC and his name was shown at serial no. 1350 of the select list taken out by the respondent authority - After the selection of the petitioner, an enquiry was made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah, into the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and his suitability for appointment to the post of Constable in the PAC. The aforesaid enquiries revealed that the petitioner had faced criminal prosecution consequent to registration of Case Crime No. 104 of 2011, under Sections 3/4 of U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998. On account of the aforesaid criminal case faced by the petitioner, the petitioner was refused appointment as Constable in the PAC - Aggrieved by the aforesaid denial of appointment, the petitioner instituted a writ petition before this Court, registered as Writ A No. 4270 of 2020, Anuj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was decided by a judgment rendered on 15.06.2020. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment in Anuj Kumar (supra), is extracted.
Finding of the court: Court have seen earlier that the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 also provides for non disclosure of details of the child who faced prosecution and restricts access to the records relating to such prosecution. Destruction of records of prosecution faced by the child is another provision reflecting a clear intent of the Legislature - Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 quoted earlier, protects the child from the consequences accruing from the conviction under the Act and mandates that such conviction under the Act cannot operate as a disqualification against such child - We are of the opinion that inactions on the part of the authorities are against the provisions of the said Act of 2000. It goes contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the said Act of 2000. Section 19 of the said Act of 2000 protects a juvenile and any stigma attached to his conviction is, also, removed. The approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people than to brand them as criminal for the rest of his life. The said Act of 2000 does not envisage incarceration of a juvenile nor wants to shut on him the doors of a decent and disciplined civilised life. On the contrary, it opens for him such a vista by providing him an occasion to amend and regulate his delinquency. The Courts are not to thwart such a course for him by either caprice, bias or any impractical or unimaginable reason. We hold that benefits sought to be given to a convicted person under section 19 of the said Act of 2000 read with the said Rules of 2007 shall equally apply to a person against whom a case is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, the authorities cannot refuse to give appointment to the writ petitioner on the sole ground of pendency of a criminal case before the said Board.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3-Commandant, 43 Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Etah, whereby the competent authority has found that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment on the post of Constable in the PAC.
2. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 was misdirected in law by overlooking the fact that the petitioner was 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, Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported at (2020) 5 ADJ 6 and in Kishan Paswan Vs. Union of India and others reported at 2020 (11) ADJ 254. 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, learned Standing Counsel 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 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) and his candidature was lawfully invalidated. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable in the Civil Police and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in response to an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, on 14.01.2018.
6. The petitioner was successful in the written examination and also qualified the physical standard test. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Constable in the PAC and his name was shown at serial no. 1350 of the select list taken out by the respondent authority.
7. After the selection of the petitioner, an enquiry was made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah, into the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and his suitability for appointment to the post of Constable in the PAC. The aforesaid enquiries revealed that the petitioner had faced criminal prosecution consequent to registration of Case Crime No. 104 of 2011, under Sections 3/4 of U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998. On account of the aforesaid criminal case faced by the petitioner, the petitioner was refused appointment as Constable in the PAC.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid denial of appointment, the petitioner instituted a writ petition before this Court, registered as Writ A No. 4270 of 2020, Anuj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition was decided by a judgment rendered on 15.06.2020. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment in Anuj Kumar (supra), is extracted hereinunder:
Writ petition stands disposed of.”
9. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court, the case of the petitioner for appointment was reconsidered by the competent authority in the impugned order dated 03.09.2020.
10. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy are established beyond the pale of any dispute in the impugned order. The facts being undisputed, the controversy
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
