# Abhishek Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 543
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 18833 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishek-kumar-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-48557
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Right to Privacy -
Juvenile
Justice
Board
(Care
&
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2000:
Section 2(k), 2(1), 19, 21 - Juvenile
Justice Board (Care & Protection of
Children)
Act,
2015:
Section
24
-
Juvenile
Justice
Board
(Care
&
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007:
Chapter II, Rule 3 - Constitution of
India, 1950 : Article 226, 21

The Court observed that petitioner was declared
as juvenile by the Board at the time when the
F.I.R. was lodged against him, therefore, his
case was to be dealt taking into consideration
the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Disclosure of details of criminal prosecution
faced as a juvenile is violative of right to privacy
and right to reputation of child guaranteed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
also denudes the protection of child sought by
the Act. However, it is noteworthy that the
petitioner has been acquitted in that instant
case and the case lodged against him was trivial
in nature and should not be viewed as
disqualification for entry in Government service.
(Para 28 & 29)

If a juvenile is convicted, same should be
obliterated, so that there is no stigma with
regard to any crime committed by such a
person as a juvenile, as the object of
Juvenile Justice Act is to reintegrate
juvenile back in the society as a normal
person. (Para 25)

The respondent cancelled the appointment of
the petitioner on the post of Lower Division
Clerk (LCD) on the ground that he had
concealed the material facts of the criminal
prosecution faced as a juvenile.

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
543
not put the petitioner to notice before
repatriating
the
petitioner
during
subsistence of the contract. But in any case
they assigned reasons, duly noted in the
file, for repatriating the petitioner and not
renewing the contract of appointment. The
decision rests on foundation based on
performance, conduct and disutility of the
petitioner. The decision of SUDA to
repatriate the petitioner cannot, in the
circumstances, be said to be arbitrary.

42. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

43. No cost.
----------
(2022)05ILR A543
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 18833 of 2021

Abhishek Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Sri Narendra Giri

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Umesh Chandra Tripathi

A. Service Law - Right to Privacy -
Juvenile
Justice
Board
(Care
&
Protection
of
Children)
Act,
2000:
Section 2(k), 2(1), 19, 21 - Juvenile
Justice Board (Care & Protection of
Children)
Act,
2015:
Section
24
-
Juvenile
Justice
Board
(Care
&
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007:
Chapter II, Rule 3 - Constitution of
India, 1950 : Article 226, 21

The Court observed that petitioner was declared
as juvenile by the Board at the time when the
F.I.R. was lodged against him, therefore, his
case was to be dealt taking into consideration
the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Disclosure of details of criminal prosecution
faced as a juvenile is violative of right to privacy
and right to reputation of child guaranteed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
also denudes the protection of child sought by
the Act. However, it is noteworthy that the
petitioner has been acquitted in that instant
case and the case lodged against him was trivial
in nature and should not be viewed as
disqualification for entry in Government service.
(Para 28 & 29)

If a juvenile is convicted, same should be
obliterated, so that there is no stigma with
regard to any crime committed by such a
person as a juvenile, as the object of
Juvenile Justice Act is to reintegrate
juvenile back in the society as a normal
person. (Para 25)

The respondent cancelled the appointment of
the petitioner on the post of Lower Division
Clerk (LCD) on the ground that he had
concealed the material facts of the criminal
prosecution faced as a juvenile.

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:

1. Rajiv Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019 (4) ADJ
316

2. Kishan Paswan Vs U.O.I. & ors. 2020 (11)
ADJ 254

3. Upendra Chauhan Vs U.O.I. & 5 ors. 2019 (3)
ADJ 613

4. Anuj kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2021 0
Supreme (All) 404

5. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19
Supreme Court Cases 710
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Ashim
Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed,
challenging the impugned order dated
24.11.2021 passed by respondent no.3,
AGM(Pers.), Canteen Stores Department
(in short ''CSD'), Ministry of Defence,
Government
of
India
whereby
the
candidature of the petitioner for selection
on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LCD)
has been rejected on the ground of
suppression
of
material
fact
of
his
involvement in criminal case which was
registered against him on 16.04.2010 prior
to the submission of application form to the
Office of Staff Selection Commission.

3. The facts of the present matter are
as follows:-

(I) The Staff Selection Commission,
New Delhi issued an advertisement in the
year 2017 for 'Combined Higher Secondary
Level
(10+2)
Examination',
inviting
applications form for direct recruitment on
the post of Lower Division Clerk (LCD) in
various departments under the Government
of India.

(II) The petitioner being qualified and
eligible applied for the aforesaid post and
after successfully completing written as
well as type test, the petitioner was selected
on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LCD)
in Canteen Stores Department, Ministry of
Defence, Government of India.

(III)
The
concerned
department/respondent no.2 issued a letter
to the petitioner, offering appointment as
Lower Division Clerk in Canteen Stores
Department along with attestation form for
employment. The petitioner submitted the
attestation form along with educational
certificates.

(IV) On 03.03.2020, while filling this
attestation form, the petitioner himself has
disclosed
the
information
regarding
pendency of one criminal case against him.
On 22.10.2020, the concerned department
issued a letter to the petitioner for seeking
clarification with regard to the criminal
case pending against him and direct the
petitioner to forward the copy of F.I.R. and
latest
Court
proceedings/orders
for
completion of appointment formalities.

(V) In compliance of the aforesaid
letter, the petitioner submitted his reply on
06.01.2021 stating therein that the F.I.R.
was lodged against him due to family
property dispute with his uncle namely,
Shyam Lal Yadav, which was registered as
Case Crime No. 250 of 2010, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. at Police
Station Soraon, District Allahabad. It was
also mentioned that during investigation the
trial Court had released the petitioner on
bail. He has also mentioned that the
Investigating Officer has submitted a
charge sheet against the petitioner under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. It was also
submitted that trial Court after perusing the
records,
on
23.12.2020
declared
the
petitioner Juvenile and transfered the
matter before Juvenile Justice Board.

(VI) On 26.04.2021, the General
Manager, Canteen Stores Department,
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India issued
a letter for cancellation of appointment of
the petitioner on the post of Lower Division
Clerk (LCD) on the ground that he had
concealed the material facts with regard to
the First Information Report lodged against
him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner was juvenile at the
5 All. Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
545
time of alleged incident i.e. on 16.4.2010,
he was 17 years 9 months and 13 days old
and he was declared juvenile by the
concerned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the respondents have
acted arbitrarily in non-suiting the claim of
the petitioner, merely, on the basis of
pendency of criminal case which is trivial in
nature and it cannot be fastened any
disqualification as per relevant provisions of
Juvenile Justice Board (Care & Protection of
Children) Act, 2000. He further submits that
the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid
case, therefore, he gave a representation dated
23.07.2021 before the authorities concerned
i.e. respondent no.2 requesting him to
consider his claim for appointment on the
post of Lower Division Clerk (LCD) in the
department but no decision has been taken,
hence, the petitioner has approached this
Court by means of filing Writ-A No.12811 of
2021 (Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. & others) and the Hon'ble Court vide
order
dated
24.09.2021
directed
the
respondent no.3 to re-examine the claim of
the petitioner for appointment on the said
post and decide the same by reasoned and
speaking order.

6. In compliance of the order of this
Court, the representation of the petitioner
was rejected by the impugned order dated
24.11.2021 on the ground that while
submitting
the
attestation
form,
the
petitioner has suppressed the fact with
respect to the pendency of criminal case
against him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the impugned order is
illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law
as the respondents while passing the
aforesaid order did not consider the fact
that the petitioner was a minor at the time
when the criminal case was lodged against
him and was declared so by the Juvenile
Justice Board, hence, they ought to have
considered the claim of the petitioner
taking into consideration the provisions of
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Act, 2000.

8. He further submits that the
petitioner at the time of lodging the said
F.I.R. was a juvenile and a juvenile has
been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act,
2000. The same is extracted below:-

"(k)" "juvenile" or "child" means a
person who has not completed eighteen
year of age."

9. He placed Section 19 of the Act,
2000, which reads as under:-

"19.
Removal
of
disqualification
attaching
to
conviction:-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, a juvenile who has committed an
offence and has been dealt with under the
provisions of this Act shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to a
conviction of an offence under such law.

(2) The Board shall make an order
directing that the relevant records of such
conviction shall be removed after the expiry
of the period of appeal or a reasonable
period prescribed under the rules, as the
case may be."

10. As the petitioner was under the
age of 18 years at the time of lodging of the
F.I.R, he had to be treated as a juvenile in
conflict with law. A "juvenile in conflict
with law" has also been defined under
Section 2 (1) of the Act, 2000. The same
reads as under:-
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(1) "juvenile in conflict with law"
means a juvenile who is alleged to have
committed
an
offence
and
has
not
completed eighteenth year of age as on the
date of commission of such offence;"

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Section 19 of the Act of 2000
has been incorporated in order to give a
juvenile an opportunity to lead his life with
no
stigma
and
to
wipe
out
the
circumstances of his past. Thus provides
that a juvenile shall not suffer any
disqualification attaching to conviction of
an offence under such Act. A "juvenile" on
the date when the alleged offence has been
committed is required to be dealt with
under the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which
declares that all criminal cases against
individuals who are described as "juvenile
in conflict with law" be decided by the
authorities constituted under the Act by the
Juvenile Justice Board. If a conviction is
recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Section 19 (1) of the Act of 2000 stipulates
that
juvenile
shall
not
suffer
any
disqualification attached to the conviction
of an offence under such law. Further
Section 19 (2) of the Act of 2000
contemplates that the Board must pass an
order directing all the relevant records of
such conviction to be removed after expiry
of the period of appeal or reasons as
prescribed under the rules as the case may
be.

12. In the present case, it would not
be out of place to mention that the
petitioner was a juvenile at the time when
the F.I.R. was lodged and was acquitted by
the concerned competent Court, hence, the
impugned order is not justified as the same
has been passed without consideration of
the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 2000.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed reliance upon Section 21 of
the Act, 2000 which prohibits publication
of the name of the "juvenile in conflict with
law" with the object to protect a juvenile
from adverse consequences on account of
his conviction for an offence committed as
a juvenile. The same reads as follows:-

"21. Prohibition of publication of
name, etc., of juvenile involved in any
proceeding under the Act.-

(1) No report in any newspaper,
magazine, new-sheet or visual media of any
inquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with
law under this Act shall disclose the name,
address or school or any other particulars
calculated to lead to the identification of
the juvenile nor shall any picture of any
such juvenile be published:

Provided that for reasons to be
recorded in writing the authority holding
the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if
in its opinion such disclosure is in the
interest of the juvenile.

(2) Any person contravening the
provisions of sub-section (1) shall be
punishable with fine, which may extend to
one thousand rupees."

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the sensitivity in matters
relating to a juvenile or child or "juvenile in
conflict with law" has been dealt with in
Chapter II of the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Rule 3
therein gives in detail the fundamental
principles to be followed in administration
of the Rules.

15. The said Act is a beneficial
legislation.
The
principles
of
such
beneficial legislation are to be applied only
for the purpose of interpretation of this
statutes. The concealment of the pendency
5 All. Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
547
of criminal case against the petitioner was
of no consequence. As per the requirement
of law a conviction in an offence will not
be treated as a disqualification for a
juvenile. The records of the case pertaining
to his involvement in a criminal matter are
to be obliterated after a specified period of
time. The intention of the legislature is
clear and in so far as juveniles are
concerned their criminal records is not to
stand in their way in their lives. The
cancellation of the candidature of the
petitioner is thus bad in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the respondents failed to
appreciate the fact that the petitioner was
entitled to the benefits of the provisions of
the Act of 2000.

16. In the present case, the petitioner
had given the details of the case pending
against him at the time of submission of his
attestation form, therefore, there was no
suppression of any fact by him.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the charges which were
levelled against the petitioner were trivial
in nature and must be passed off and could
not be viewed as a disqualification for entry
in Government service. It is in that context
the following observations as made by the
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh are of
relevance:-

"(5) In a case where the employee has
made declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the
right to consider antecedents, and cannot
be compelled to appoint the candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal case
of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its discretion
may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case."

18. He raised his contention with respect to
the provisions of Section 24, which is as
follows:-

24. Removal of disqualification on
the findings of an offence-

"(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, a child who has committed
an offence and has been dealt with under
the provisions of this Act shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attached to a
conviction of an offence under such law.

Provided that in case of a child who
has completed or is above the age of
sixteen years and is found to be in conflict
with law by the Children's Court under
clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 19,
the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not
apply.

(2) The Board shall make an order
directing the Police, or by the Children's
Court to its own registry that the relevant
records of such conviction shall be
destroyed after the expiry of the period of
appeal or, as the case may be, a reasonable
period as may be prescribed.

Provided that in case of a heinous
offence where the child is found to be in
conflict with law under clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 19, the relevant
records of conviction of such child shall be
retained by the Children's Court."

It is evident there from, that even if a
juvenile is convicted under the provisions
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015, the same is not
liable to be viewed as a disqualification
which may otherwise and ordinarily stand
attached upon a person being convicted.
Hence, the matter be remanded to the
respondents
for
re-evaluation
of
the
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners claim in light of the legal
provision which is adverted to. He,
therefore, submits that the impugned orders
are unsustainable.

19. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance the several judgements of
this Court. In case of Rajiv Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and another, reported in
2019 (4) ADJ 316, the holdings were
summed up as follows:-

"157.....The insistence of the State
employer on a disclosure of criminal
prosecution faced as a child reflected an
impersonal attitude and a rote response to
child rights. This is not an environment
which fosters a healthy development of
children and where rights of children
flourish.

158. The requirement posed by the
respondents to the petitioner to make a
declaration disclosing details of criminal
prosecution faced by the latter, insofar as it
included the criminal prosecution faced by
the petitioner as a minor child of 10 years
was in violation of the fundamental rights
of the petitioner guaranteed byArticle 14
and 21of the Constitution of India and in
the teeth of Section 25 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986.

159. The details of past prosecution
faced by the petitioner as a child was not a
valid criteria nor a lawful consideration to
judge his suitability for appointment. Such
criteria was arbitrary and illegal.

160. The declaration made by the
petitioner was not a relevant consideration
in the appointment of the petitioner. Hence,
even the falsity of the declaration made by
the petitioner could not invalidate his
appointment.

161. The petitioner in defence of his
fundamental rights vested by Article 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India, could hold
his silence or decline to disclose details of
the prosecution in a criminal trial faced by
him as a minor child of 10 years. Such
action or declaration of the petitioner
cannot be faulted with.

The services of the petitioner cannot
be terminated on the foot of such action or
declaration." (emphasis supplied)

20. He has placed another judgement
of this Court passed in case of Kishan
Paswan Vs. Union of India and others,
reported in 2020 (11) ADJ 254, wherein
relying on provisions of Section 24 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 following has been
held:-

"102. The wide consensus of such
values helps us in determining the rights of
a child. The endeavours of the courts and
the legislatures alike is to protect the
identity of the child offender, and to shield
the child in conflict with law from suffering
lasting and traumatic consequences of
criminal prosecution. A child who has been
prosecuted for criminal offence is entitled
to a fresh chance in life. The child has to
begin life as an adult on a clean state, as if
no such criminal prosecution happened.
This is possible when the fact of such
criminal prosecution is purged from public
discourse and is not a consideration for
appointment to an office. The denial of
public space and legitimacy to the fact of
such criminal prosecution is the sheet
anchor of the right to privacy and right to
reputation of a child. An employer cannot
elicit any information from any candidate
or employee regarding the prosecution of
the latter in a criminal case as a minor child
for non heinous offences. An employer is
precluded from seeking a declaration from
5 All. Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
549
a candidate or an employee regarding the
prosecution of the latter in a criminal case
as a child. (emphasis supplied)."

"112. The criteria of past criminal
prosecution for forming an opinion about
considering a criminal antecedents of a
candidate is a valid one. This criteria which
is valid for adults, would be flawed if
applied to children. This would amount to
treating unequals as equals. A logical
sequitor is that fact of a past criminal
prosecution of a child is not a relevant
consideration for appointment to a public
post or office and is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. (emphasis
supplied)"

21. He also placed reliance on another
judgement of this Court in case of Shivam
Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2020 (5) ADJ 5. The Division
Bench of this Court has taken a similar
view in the aforesaid case, which is as
follows:-

"14. The said Act is a beneficial
legislation.
The
principles
of
such
beneficial legislation are to be applied
only for the purpose of interpretation of
this statute. The concealment of the
pendency of criminal case against the
appellant-petitioner
was
of
no
consequence. As per the requirement of
law a conviction in an offence will not be
treated as a disqualification for a
juvenile.
The
records
of
the
case
pertaining to his involvement in a
criminal matter are to be obliterated after
a specified period of time. The intention
of the legislature is clear that in so far as
juveniles are concerned their criminal
records is not to stand in their way in
their lives. The cancellation of the
candidature of the appellant-petitioner
was thus bad. The 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.

15. We thus hold that the authority
concerned fell in complete error in not
extending the benefit of Act of 2000 to the
appellant-petitioner
particularly
when
there are specific provisions provided
therein to take care of a juvenile being
implicated, tried and / or convicted in a
criminal matter. We thus extend the benefit
provided under Section 19 of the Act of
2000 to the appellant-petitioner."

22. In the case of Upendra Chauhan
Vs. Union of India And 5 Others,
reported in 2019 (3) ADJ 613, the Court
has given the following conclusion:-

"It is evident that the respondents have
taken contradictory and conflicting stands.
While at one place, they admit that due
disclosure was made in the attestation
form, in the subsequent paragraphs they
proceed to note that the suppression
regarding the criminal cases was deliberate
and with an intent to obtain entry in
Government service and not due to any
misconception. Not only are these findings
incompatible, they evidence a complete
non-application of mind. The findings with
respect to suppression are not only belied
from the recitals appearing in the impugned
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order itself but also from the attestation
form in which the petitioner had admittedly
made the requisite disclosure.

Additionally the Court notes the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner who contended that the charges
which were levelled against the petitioner
were trivial in nature and must be passed
off and attributed to the exuberance and
intemperance of youth and clearly could
not be viewed as a disqualification for
entry in Government service. It is in that
context the following observations as made
by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh are of
relevance:

"(5) In a case where the employee
has made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider antecedents,
and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal case
of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its discretion
may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case."

The contention lastly raised with
respect to the provisions of Section 24 also
merits due consideration. In the considered
view of the Court and as is evident
therefrom, even if a juvenile is convicted
under the provisions of the 2015 Act the
same is not liable to be viewed as a
disqualification which may otherwise and
ordinarily stand attached upon a person
being convicted. This issue too merits the
matter being remanded to the respondents
for re-evaluation of the petitioners claim in
light of the legal provision which is
adverted to. On an overall conspectus of
the aforesaid and in the considered view of
this Court the impugned orders are
rendered unsustainable."

23. After dealing with several relevant
provisions related to juvenile and taking
into consideration the judgements passed in
several cases, the Court has laid down the
law as has emerged after considering the
settled position of law in the case of Anuj
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
reported in 2021 0 Supreme (All) 404,
which is as follows:-

"I. Juveniles and adults form separate
classes. Criminal prosecution of an adult is
a lawful basis for determination of
suitability of a candidate for appointment
to public office. However prosecution of
juveniles is in a separate class. Using
criminal prosecution faced by a candidate
as a juvenile to form an opinion about his
suitability for appointment, is arbitrary
illegal and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

II. The requirement to disclose details
of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile
is violative of the right to privacy and the
right to reputation of a child guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. It also denudes the child of the
protection assured by the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time).
Hence the employer cannot ask any
candidate to disclose details of criminal
prosecution faced as a juvenile.

III. The candidate can hold his silence
or decline to give information about the
criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile.
Denial
of
such
information
by
the
candidate will not amount to a false
declaration or a willful suppression of
facts.

IV. The conviction by a Juvenile
Justice Board under the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000 of a juvenile is not a
disqualification for employment. As a
sequitor prosecution faced as a juvenile is
not a relevant fact for forming an opinion
5 All. Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
551
about
the
criminal
antecedents
and
suitability
of
the
candidate
for
appointment. Such prosecution cannot be
made a basis for denial of appointment.
Non disclosure of irrelevant facts is not
"deliberate" or willful concealment of
material facts. Hence non-disclosure of
such criminal cases cannot invalidate the
appointment of the said person.

V. Clarification:

These holdings shall not apply to
cases beyond the ambit of Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time)
and also in cases of heinous crimes
committed by persons in the age group of
16 to 18 years."

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has lastly relying upon the judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of
India And Others Vs. Ramesh Bishnoi,
reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court
Cases 710, reads as follows:-

"It is clear that at the time when the
charges
were
framed
against
the
respondent, on 30.06.2009, the respondent
was well under the age of 18 years as his
date of birth is 05.09.1991. Firstly, it was
not disputed that the charges were never
proved against the respondent as the girl
and her parents did not depose against the
respondent, resulting in his acquittal on
24.11.2011. Even if the allegations were
found to be true, then too the respondent
could not have been deprived of getting a
job on the basis of such charges as the
same had been committed while the
respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the
legislation, i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as
well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that
even if a juvenile is convicted, the same
should be obliterated, so that there is no
stigma with regard to any crime committed
by such person as a juvenile. This is with
the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile
back in the society as a normal person,
without any stigma. Section 3 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines
for
the
Central
Government,
State
Governments,
the
Board
and
other
agencies while implementing the provisions
of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3,
it is clearly provided as follows:

"3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All
past records of any child under the Juvenile
Justice system should be erased except in
special circumstances."

In the present case, it is an admitted
fact that the respondent was a minor when
the charges had been framed against him of
offences under Sections 354, 447 and 509
of IPC. It is also not disputed that he was
acquitted of the charges. However, even if
he had been convicted, the same could not
have been held against him for getting a
job, as admittedly he was a minor when the
alleged offences were committed and the
charges had been framed against him."

25. Thus, even if a juvenile is
convicted, same should be obliterated, so
that there is no stigma with regard to any
crime committed by such a person as a
juvenile, as the object of Juvenile Justice
Act is to reintegrate juvenile back in
society as a normal person.

26. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand submits that the petitioner at the
time of submitting attestation form on
02.03.2020 had revealed the information
that a criminal case was pending against
him but the aforesaid facts who had been
concealed by him at the time of submitting
of declaration form during document
verification at the office of Staff Selection
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commission (SCC) on 17.09.2019. The
declaration given by the petitioner is as
follows:-

"I also declare that I do not stand
debarred by SSC/UPSC as on date and
never been convicted by any court of law, I
also declare that no charge sheet is
pending against me in any court of law.
Further declare that I have never been
dismissed or removed from Govt. Service or
my
service
been
terminated
during
probation."

27. He further submits that the
conduct of the petitioner in suppressing the
fact of his being embroiled in a criminal
case, impinges on his integrity whereas in a
sensitive department like the Canteen
Stores
Department,
the
respondents
required a person of the highest integrity
and, therefore, even applying law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Avtar
Singh,
the
decision
of
the
respondents taken on due application of
mind cancelling the appointment of the
petitioner on the ground of suppression
does not want any interference at the hands
of this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the petition
is liable to be dismissed.

28. In the facts of the present case, it is
admitted position that the petitioner was
juvenile as declared by the Board at the time
when the F.I.R. was lodged against him,
therefore, his case was to be dealt, taking into
consideration the provisions of Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,
2000. Even if it is presume that the petitioner
had not disclosed about the pendency of the
criminal case, the requirement of disclosed
details of criminal prosecution faced as a
juvenile is violative of right to privacy and
right to reputation of child, guaranteed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
also denudes the child of protection sought by
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, hence, it was
not expected from the petitioner to disclose
details of criminal prosecution faced as a
juvenile.

29. Admittedly, the petitioner has been
acquitted in the present case and the case so
lodged against him was trivial in nature and
should not be viewed as disqualification for
entry in Government service.

30. In view of the above discussion, the
impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

31. The writ petition stands allowed.
The impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed
by respondent no.3 is set aside and the
mandamus is issued to the respondents to
issue appointment letter to the petitioner, in
accordance with law as well as in the light of
observations made hereinabove.
----------
(2022)05ILR A552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Writ-A No. 26732 of 2019

Shalu Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Kumar, Vikrant Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Selection Process -
Selection for appointment of a candidate
is a valuable right. The right has to be