Court Decision
Subject : Employment Law - Juvenile Justice
In a significant ruling, the Tribunal presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Ranjit More
quashed the cancellation of candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) for several applicants, including
The applicants contended that their past involvement in criminal cases as juveniles should not disqualify them from government employment. They argued that the cancellation of their candidacies violated the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which states that juveniles should not suffer disqualifications based on their past offenses. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the nature of the duties required for a Constable necessitated a thorough examination of a candidate's character, and that the Standing Order No. 398/2018 justified their actions.
The court analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, emphasizing the protective measures afforded to juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act. It highlighted that the Standing Order, which allowed for the consideration of juvenile offenses in assessing suitability, was contrary to the legislative intent of the Act. The court noted that the applicants had been acquitted of the charges and that using their juvenile records against them was arbitrary and illegal.
The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the applicants, quashing the show cause notices and the order that canceled their candidacies. It directed the respondents to appoint the applicants as Constables, provided they met other criteria, and mandated that this process be completed within eight weeks. This decision reinforces the principle that juveniles should not be penalized for past offenses, promoting their reintegration into society without stigma.
#JuvenileJustice #EmploymentLaw #LegalRights #CentralAdministrativeTribunal
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.