Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpraj Singh vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2025
1
WP No. 7043 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 7043 of 2021
PUSHPRAJ SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manhar Dixit - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 14.07.2025)
(Pronounced on 24.07.2025)
By way of present petition challenge is made to action of the
respondents in not appointing the petitioner despite he having participated
and remained successful in written examination as well as physical test
conducted by Army Recruitment Office, Jabalpur for the position of Soldier
/ General Duty.
2. Though the matter relates to enlistment in Indian Army, however,
respondents have not objected to the jurisdiction of this Court on the
ground that as per Section 3(o) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the
dispute of present matter does not fall within the ambit of AFT in view of
Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Union of
India Vs. Kapil Kumar decided on 24.04.2015. This Court is aware of the
fact that if the petitioner is sent before the AFT, he would be caught in
maze of legal intricacies, as the matter relates to enlistment in Armed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
2
WP No. 7043 of 2021
Forces by a person who is not yet so enlisted. in the case of Kaptan Singh v
Union of India and others (O.A No. 17 of 2015 decided on 28.05.2021), a
Full Bench of the AFT has decided the legal issue by holding that matters
pertaining to appointment and recruitment to the service is beyond the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Finding difference of opinion between various
Benches on the issue, the Full Bench of Tribunal took note of the definition
of “service matters” appearing in Section 3(o) of the AFT Act, the aims and
objects and the application of the AFT Act only to persons who are subject
to Army Act 1950, Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act 1950 and by a
detailed order, after following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in
the case of Union of India through Secretary and others v. Kapil Kumar
(Special Appeal No. 833 of 2015), came to the conclusion that matters
pertaining to “recruitment” and “appointment” are beyond the jurisdiction.
3. Proceeding on merits, the case of the petitioner is that he qualified
for the post of Soldier / General Duty and was awaiting the offer letter to
attend the training centre for being recruited as Soldier / General Duty.
However, the offer letter has never been received by the petitioner. Upon
enquiry, it was intimated that the petitioner has remained unsuccessful in
criminal antecedent verification and therefore, the respondents have not
given offer of appointment to the petitioner. It is contended that the alleged
offence was conducted when the petitioner was a juvenile and the matter
was tried by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Satna and
therefore, the said criminal case cannot be pressed into service to disqualify
the petitioner for enlistment in Armed Forces.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that
the petitioner made suppression in the criminal antecedent verification form
and he did not disclose the conviction by the Principal Judge, Juvenile
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
3
WP No. 7043 of 2021
Justice Board and therefore, the petitioner not having disclosed his
conviction by Juvenile Justice Board, therefore he is disqualified not only
on the ground that he has criminal antecedents but also on the ground of
suppression because the case before Juvenile Justice Board was not
disclosed by the petitioner in the criminal antecedent verification form.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has
remained successful in written test and physical test for enlistment as
Soldier / General Duty. It is also not in dispute that he was tried by the
Juvenile Justice Board for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC
wherein he admitted to the charges and upon admission of guilt, the
petitioner and co-accused persons were punished with fine of Rs.1000/-
each.
7. The allegations against the petitioner in the said criminal case were
that on 31.05.2017 he at 4:30 pm in the evening uttered obscene words to
complainant and further that he along with co-accused Juvenile assaulted
the complainant with kicks and fists and also threatened him. This was the
all allegation against the present petitioner in the charges framed against
him under Sections 294, 323/34, 506 IPC. The petitioner pleaded guilty to
the charges writing in his own handwriting that he has committed a mistake
and he may be pardoned and he will not repeat the mistake. The Juvenile
Justice Board thereafter passed the final order dated 24.08.2018 whereby
the petitioner was convicted with imposition of fine of Rs.1000/-.
8. The Juvenile Justice Board while passing the order of conviction
further mentioned in the said conviction order that the said conviction
cannot be treated as disqualification in the future life of the petitioner in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
4
WP No. 7043 of 2021
any manner whatsoever. The Juvenile Justice Board in the final order of
conviction recorded as under:-
” कशोर याय (बालको क दे खरे ख एवं संर ण) अिधिनयम 2015 के
उपबंध के तहत यह आदे श विध उ लंघनकता कशोर के भ व य पर
कसी भी कार से िनरहताकार भाव नह ं रखेगा।”
9. Learned counsel for the respondents during the course of argument
did not object to the legal preposition as per Section 24 of The Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short hereinafter
referred to as ‘JJ Act, 2015‘) to submit that as per Section 24 there would
be no disqualification on the findings of offence against Juvenile because
admittedly the petitioner was Juvenile and he was tried by the Juvenile
Justice Board and in terms of Section 24 of JJ Act, 2015 there would be no
disqualification on findings of an offence. Section 24 of JJ Act, 2015 is as
under:-
“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 sub-section
(1) of section 19, the relevant records of conviction of such child
shall be retained by the Children’s Court”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
5
WP No. 7043 of 2021
10. However, learned counsel for the respondents had harped on the fact
that it is not a simpliciter case of Juvenile getting in conflict with law in
small and trivial matter and pleading guilty to avoid agony of trial, but it is
a case of Juvenile having committed another blunder of having suppressed
the said fact in his antecedent verification form. Therefore, the counsel for
the respondents did not object to the settled legal position that a Juvenile
even upon being convicted and when he is tried as a juvenile, would be
entitled to the benefit of Section 24 of JJ Act, 2015. However, what is
stressed before this Court is the suppression made by the petitioner in the
criminal antecedent verification form which was stated to be an exhibition
of delinquent mind by the petitioner and on this ground alone, it is stated
that his candidature is liable to be cancelled.
11. In this regard Section 24(2) of JJ Act, 2015 is the most relevant
provision which mentions that the record of conviction shall be destroyed
after expiry of period of appeal. The aforesaid Section 24(2) has to be read
along with Section 3(xiv) of the JJ Act, 2015 which provides as under:-
“3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child
under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in
special circumstances.”
12. A conjoint reading of Section 3(xiv) and Section 24(2) of JJ Act,
2015 would imply that all past records of any child under the Juvenile
Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. Therefore,
in the considered opinion of this Court, once the Juvenile having been tried
as Juvenile and entitled to protection of Section 24(2) and not having
committed any heinous offence as contemplated under the JJ Act, 2015,
therefore, his record was liable to be erased and once the petitioner was
entitled to benefit of record to be erased, then merely on account of non-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
6
WP No. 7043 of 2021
disclosure of the said conviction, more so, when it was under most trivial
cognizable offences under the IPC, the said fact cannot be pressed into
service as a disqualification against the petitioner.
13. The aforesaid issue was considered by the Division Bench of Delhi
High Court in case of Mohd. Parvej Alam v. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 1250 wherein the Delhi High Court considered the aforesaid
provisions and held as under:-
16. Undoubtedly, in the present case there is non-revealing of
the factum of a pending criminal case but the legal position
seems quite clear and settled. A juvenile is not required to
divulge about his previous antecedents. We may also, right here,
make reference to Akhilesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 7341. In said case, petitioner had applied for the
post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force. As per the
selection process, he filled up the requisite form mentioning
therein that no criminal case was registered against him.
However, when the above form was sent for police verification, it
was found that he was involved in a criminal case. It was in the
aforesaid background that his appointment was cancelled and he
was discharged. Such order was challenged by him and a
Coordinate Bench of this Court noted that the petitioner therein
was juvenile at the time of the commission of offence and,
therefore, he could not be made to suffer any disqualification in
view of the provisions of the J.J. Act. The relevant para of the
judgment reads as under:–
“14. The object of Section 19 of the J.J. Act is to give an
opportunity to the juvenile to lead a life with no stigma and
to wipe out the circumstances of his inglorious past. It is
for this reason that Section 19 provides that a juvenile shall
not suffer any disqualification.
15. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res
integra in view of a recent decision of this Court in Writ
Petition (C) No. 6062/2017 titled as Mukesh
Yadav v. Union of India dated 14.12.2017 (authored by
one of us, Hima Kohli, J.). In the said writ petition, a
criminal case No. 65/2000 under
Sections 147/148/149/323/324/504/307 IPC was registered
in District Gopal Ganj, Bihar against the petitioner and ten
other accused persons. He was also selected to the post of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
7
WP No. 7043 of 2021
a Constable in the RPSF. While submitting the attestation
form, the petitioner did not mention about the pendency of
the criminal case which came to the notice of the
respondent only when the attestation form was sent for
verification. The petitioner, who was undergoing training
by then, was issued a discharge order dated 29.07.2015
stating that since he had suppressed the fact of the
pendency of the criminal case against him while filling the
attestation form, he was being discharged as per the
conditions mentioned in para 3 of the attestation form.
16. In the above noted writ petition also, the contention
raised on behalf of the respondents was that it was the duty
of the petitioner to have furnished the relevant details of
the criminal case pending against him at the time of filling
up the verification form. But he failed to do so and the
pendency of the said case came to the notice of the
respondents only upon undertaking necessary police
verification regarding his antecedents. The above writ
petition was allowed for the following reasons:–
“7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and examined the documents on the record. The facts of
the case are undisputed inasmuch as there is no quarrel
with regard to the plea of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that on the date of the alleged offence i.e. on
9th October, 2000, the petitioner was twelve years five
months old. It is also not disputed that on the date the
petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of a
Constable in the year 2011, a case was pending against
him before the Juvenile Justice Board and same was the
position on 25th May, 2014, when the petitioner was
called upon by the respondents to submit an attestation
form. The said criminal case attained finality by virtue of
the judgment dated 3rd August, 2015, passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, District Gopalganj. However,
less than a week prior thereto, the respondents passed
the order of discharge against the petitioner, on the
ground of withholding material information.
8. Having regard to the legal position, which shows
that the petitioner was undoubtedly, a juvenile on the
date when the alleged offence had been committed and,
therefore, he was required to be dealt with under
the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whichSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
8WP No. 7043 of 2021
declares that all criminal charges against individuals,
who are described as “juvenile in conflict with law”
must be initiated and decided by the authorities
constituted under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Even if a conviction is recorded by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Section 19(1) of the Act, stipulates that the
juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attached to
the conviction of an offence under such law. Further, as
noted hereinabove, Section 19(2) of the Act contemplates
that the Board must pass an order directing that all the
relevant records relating to such a conviction, be
removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or
within a reasonable period as prescribed under the
rules, as the case may be.
9. In the present case, the record reveals that the
Juvenile Justice Board had acquitted the petitioner for
the offence in question and, therefore, this was even
otherwise, not a case of conviction for any offence. It is
also noteworthy that Section 21 of the Act prohibits
publication of the name of the “juvenile in conflict with
law”, the underlying object of the said provision being
to protect a juvenile from any adverse consequences on
account of the conviction for an offence, committed as a
juvenile.
10. Given the aforesaid position, the contention of the
respondents is that petitioner was under an obligation to
have disclosed the information relating to the pendency
of the criminal case against him in respect of an incident
that had taken place when he was all of twelve years,
would run contrary to the very spirit of the Act. Keeping
in mind the fact that the object of the Act is to ensure
that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with
law, in our view, once the juvenile has been extended a
protective umbrella under the said enactment, there was
no good reason for the respondents to have insisted that
the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information
relating to the allegations against him pertaining to an
offence that was committed during his childhood where
he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and
subsequently acquitted. We may add here that even when
police verification in respect of the petitioner was being
conducted on the directions of the respondents, the
concerned police officials ought to have refrained from
revealing the information pertaining to the petitioner in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
9
WP No. 7043 of 2021
the case in question, since he was a juvenile at that point
in time. This was in fact a gross breach of confidentiality
contemplated under the Act.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order
dated 11th May, 2017, is unsustainable and is quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today
along with all the consequential benefits, excluding back
wages.”
17. Thus, in view of the above facts and the legal position,
the factum of prosecution of the petitioner in case FIR No.
752/2010 under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC could not have
been taken into consideration by the respondent/RPSF on his
omission to mention the same in the attestation form on
account of his status as a juvenile in conflict with law on the
date of commission of the alleged offence. We cannot ignore
or overlook the beneficial provisions and the socially
progressive statute of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.”
17. Thus, applying the aforesaid legal position and keeping
in mind the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000, it becomes quite
obvious that the petitioner was under no legal obligation to have
revealed the fact about his previous involvement in a criminal
case, for an offence which he allegedly committed when he was a
minor.”
14. The said issue was raised before the Delhi High Court in another
case of Akhilesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7341
and the Delhi High Court in the said case held that the object of the Act is
to ensure that no stigma is attached to a Juvenile in conflict with law and
once the Juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under the JJ Act
2015, there was no good reason for the employer to insist that the Juvenile
should disclose the information in relating to offence committed under his
childhood where he was tried by Juvenile Justice Board. It is further held in
the said case that when police verification report was being conducted then
the concerned police officials ought to have not revealed the information
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
10
WP No. 7043 of 2021
pertaining to Juvenile in the case in question since he was a Juvenile at that
point of time. It has been held that it infact is a case of breach of
confidentiality contemplated under the JJ Act, 2015. The Division Bench of
Delhi High Court held as under:-
“16. In the above noted writ petition also, the contention raised on
behalf of the respondents was that it was the duty of the petitioner to
have furnished the relevant details of the criminal case pending
against him at the time of filling up the verification form. But he failed
to do so and the pendency of the said case came to the notice of the
respondents only upon undertaking necessary police verification
regarding his antecedents. The above writ petition was allowed for the
following reasons:–
“7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
examined the documents on the record. The facts of the case are
undisputed inasmuch as there is no quarrel with regard to the
plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of
the alleged offence i.e. on 9th October, 2000, the petitioner was
twelve years five months old. It is also not disputed that on the
date the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of a
Constable in the year 2011, a case was pending against him
before the Juvenile Justice Board and same was the position on
25th May, 2014, when the petitioner was called upon by the
respondents to submit an attestation form. The said criminal
case attained finality by virtue of the judgment dated 3rd August,
2015, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, District Gopalganj.
However, less than a week prior thereto, the respondents passed
the order of discharge against the petitioner, on the ground of
withholding material information.
8. Having regard to the legal position, which shows that the
petitioner was undoubtedly, a juvenile on the date when the
alleged offence had been committed and, therefore, he was
required to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Act”) which declares that all criminal charges against
individuals, who are described as “juvenile in conflict with law”
must be initiated and decided by the authorities constituted
under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. Even if a conviction
is recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 19(1) of the
Act, stipulates that the juvenile shall not suffer any
disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
11
WP No. 7043 of 2021
such law. Further, as noted hereinabove, Section 19(2) of the Act
contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing that all
the relevant records relating to such a conviction, be removed
after the expiry of the period of appeal or within a reasonable
period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.
9. In the present case, the record reveals that the Juvenile
Justice Board had acquitted the petitioner for the offence in
question and, therefore, this was even otherwise, not a case of
conviction for any offence. It is also noteworthy that Section 21
of the Act prohibits publication of the name of the “juvenile in
conflict with law”, the underlying object of the said provision
being to protect a juvenile from any adverse consequences on
account of the conviction for an offence, committed as a juvenile.
10. Given the aforesaid position, the contention of the
respondents is that petitioner was under an obligation to have
disclosed the information relating to the pendency of the
criminal case against him in respect of an incident that had
taken place when he was all of twelve years, would run contrary
to the very spirit of the Act. Keeping in mind the fact that the
object of the Act is to ensure that no stigma is attached to a
juvenile in conflict with law, in our view, once the juvenile has
been extended a protective umbrella under the said enactment,
there was no good reason for the respondents to have insisted
that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information
relating to the allegations against him pertaining to an offence
that was committed during his childhood where he was tried by
the Juvenile Justice Board, and subsequently acquitted. We
may add here that even when police verification in respect of
the petitioner was being conducted on the directions of the
respondents, the concerned police officials ought to have
refrained from revealing the information pertaining to the
petitioner in the case in question, since he was a juvenile at
that point in time. This was in fact a gross breach of
confidentiality contemplated under the Act.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated
th
11 May, 2017, is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a
period of twelve weeks from today along with all the
consequential benefits, excluding backwages.”
(Emphasis added)
17. Thus, in view of the above facts and the legal position, the
factum of prosecution of the petitioner in case FIR No. 752/2010
under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC could not have been taken into
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
12
WP No. 7043 of 2021
consideration by the respondent/RPSF on his omission to mention the
same in the attestation form on account of his status as a juvenile in
conflict with law on the date of commission of the alleged offence. We
cannot ignore or overlook the beneficial provisions and the socially
progressive statute of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Ramesh
Bishnoi, (2019) 19 SCC 710 has held that a minor at the time of
commission of offence even if convicted, nothing can be held against him
in terms of Section 3(xiv) of JJ Act, 2015 because no stigma is attached to
any crime committed by Juvenile and object of legislation is to reintegrate
Juvenile back into the society as normal person and not to cast stigma and
brand him as a criminal or as a person having delinquent mind. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a
minor when the charges had been framed against him of the offences
under Sections 354, 447 and 509 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. Section 3(xiv) provides
for the same and the exception of special circumstances does not
apply to the facts of the present case.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court very recently in case of Lokesh Kumar
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in SLP (Crl.) No.851/2025 decided on
18.02.2025 has considered the said issue in detail. In the said case also the
Juvenile had confessed to the offence and was sentenced to sit before the
Juvenile Justice Board till rising of the Board and imposed the fine of
Rs.600/-. The police authorities issued character verification certificate for
the purpose of employment to the person who was earlier a Juvenile at the
time of trial and conviction and disclosed the prior conviction in the
character certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that a conjoint
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
13
WP No. 7043 of 2021
reading of Section 24 and Section 3(xiv) of JJ Act, 2015 mandates that all
past records of the juvenile in conflict with law should be erased and it
should not operate as bar to the child’s future unless the alleged offence
was within the specific exceptions. It has been held that legislative design
of Section 24 is emphatically protective in nature and carves out a unique
sphere of immunity for individuals whose offences have been adjudicated
under the Juvenile Justice framework which is rooted in broader
humanitarian object of JJ Act, 2015 which is to rehabilitate and reintegrate
juveniles into society free from stigma of their past conflicts with law.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the JJ Act, 2015 lays
emphasis on child centric approach as underscored by Section 3(xiv)
thereof which provides for principle of fresh start making it clear that all
past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased
except in special circumstances. The said case was also under Sections 294,
506, 323/34 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the earlier
judgment in the case of Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) held that there is no
persisting stigma on the juvenile and therefore, authorities ought not to
have disclosed the previous conviction as Juvenile in the character
certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lokesh Kumar (supra)
ultimately held as under:-
“19. The Impugned Order dated 27.08.2024 is hereby set aside.
The character certificate dated 09.07.2024, insofar as it
discloses or relies upon the Appellant’s juvenile conviction, is
quashed. All concerned authorities are directed not to treat or
disclose the said juvenile conviction in any future verification,
screening, or certification process relating to the Appellant’s
education, employment, or any other opportunity.
20. It is further directed that the record of the Appellant’s
juvenile conviction, except as permitted in the limited
circumstances contemplated by the JJ Act, 2015, shall be treatedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM
14WP No. 7043 of 2021
in accordance with Section 24 of the said Act, so that it does not
operate as a disqualification or hinder his prospects in any
manner. This direction shall be strictly complied with by all
authorities, including the police and other public bodies, who
may be required to issue character certificates or conduct
background checks on the Appellant.”
18. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the
action of the respondents in not giving offer of appointment to petitioner by
treating his non-disclosure of most trivial offence as a disqualification
cannot be given stamp of approval.
19. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to act upon the
result of the petitioner in written examination and physical test without
treating him to be disqualified for not having disclosed the offence which
was committed by him as a Juvenile. Let needful be done within one
month.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 7/24/2025
6:31:47 PM