The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person's involvement in criminal cases as a minor does not automatically disqualify them for appointment in the police service, and relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions support the eligibility of juvenile offenders for appointment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3, Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly. Further direction has been sought against the aforesaid respondent no. 3 to permit the petitioner for training and after completion of training issue appointment letter to him.

3. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Police Constable, PAC (Male) and was declared successful in the selection. His name found place in the merit list in O.B.C category. He filed an affidavit disclosing the offences wherein he was involved dated 30.05.2018. On 08.06.2018 the petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board, Azamgarh by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh and he appeared before the Medical Board and was selected.

4. After medical test he was sent for training to District – Rae Bareilly where he was restrained from training on the ground that he was involved in criminal cases. The respondent no. 4, U.P. Police, Headquarter, Allahabad, informed that there is no such case pending against the applicant which may disentitle him for appointment in the Police / P.A.C department. Despite favourable report in his favour he was not permitted to complete his training since he approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 3899 of 2019 which was disposed of directing the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate decision in the light of communication sent by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh dated 20.06.2019. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court dated 17.07.2019 by the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 the respondent no. 3 has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for joining the training on the ground that the applicant was earlier implicated in Case Crime No. 646 of 2010, under Sections 302/307 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and was acquitted because the witnesses turned hostile. Case Crime No. 350 of 2010, under Sections – 457, 380, 381, 411 IPC was registered against him at Police Station-Rani Ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh, and another Case Crime No. 854 of 2010, under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act was registered against him. The respondent no. 3 found that the applicant was not fit for being given appointment in the disciplined police force and has rejected his claim.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Case Crime No. 646 of 2010, under Section 302/307 IPC and Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Rani Ki Sarai, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2015. In Case Crime No. 350 of 2010, under Sections 381/411/457/380 IPC, Police Station-Rani Ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh, the petitioner was released on probation for a probation period of one year and also fined and in Case Crime No. 854 of 2010, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station-Rani Ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh he was released on probation for the period of 21.06.2018 to 21.05.2019 and also fined.

6. All those criminal cases were registered against the petitioner in the year 2010 when the petitioner was minor apart from which in Case Crime No. 854 of 2010, the decision of concerned court came on 09.05.2018.

7. In this regard, the State Government issued the G.O. dated 28.04.1958.

Clause (b) of para 3 of the said G.O. provides as under :

(b) In cases of doubt, the appointing authority may either ask for further references, or may refer the case to the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate may then make further enquiries as he considers necessary.

Note-(a) : A conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of ta certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve on moral turpitude or association with crime of violence or with a movem