Conviction of a juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board cannot be considered as disqualification for his employment
The Petitioner/Candidate was successful in the written examination and also qualified the physical standard test. He 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 in the past. On account of the aforesaid criminal case faced by the petitioner, the petitioner was refused appointment as Constable in the PAC.
On the date of the offence for which the petitioner was prosecuted, he was 15 years 8 months 12 days old. 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 and illegal.
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. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Hence, the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile.
Thereby, 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. The conviction by a Juvenile Justice Board is not a disqualification for employment. As a sequitur prosecution faced as a juvenile is not a relevant fact for forming an opinion 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.
Appearing Counsel: Arvind Kumar Singh
