Record Of Conviction Of A Child Not A Ground For Denying Appointment In Public Employment : Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High court bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Yogendra Kumar Purohit noted that the record of the conviction of a child cannot be preserved and has to be destroyed. The court further noted that any disqualification entailing from the conviction would have to be ignored and cannot be a detriment to the child in conflict with law in any manner including the public employment selection process.

In the case at hand, the candidature of man for the post of Constable was rejected on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. This came to light during police verification. However, the power of review was exercised by the single judge bench of the High Court and it was observed that the rejection of candidature was invalid.

The validity of the order of the single judge bench was challenged by the State of Rajasthan. The said criminal case was registered in the year 2011 when the respondent was a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act,2000. 

Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 states that a juvenile is entitled to be protected against the use of criminal antecedents in the future recruitment processes.  

Section 24 of the act is given as follows;

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.

It was submitted on behalf of the state that the respondent should not be considered for the appointment as constable as he has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and it is a crime of heinous nature.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that when the order was passed to reject his candidature by the single judge. He had still not been convicted for the offence punishable by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was still under trial. It was further submitted that even if he was convicted for the said offence it will not lead to rejection of his candidature as the protection under Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 would still apply to him.

It was also submitted by the state that the Juvenile Justice Board had concluded an enquiry against him and deduced that the respondent was guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended before the court that the single judge bench was not justified in using the power of judicial review to intervene in the decision of the employer to reject the candidature.

The bench observed that on perusal of records it is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution was solely based on the last seen theory which means it was purely dependent on circumstantial evidence. The court also observed that the last seen theory was not mentioned in the first account of the incident that was given to the police.

In the light of the aforementioned and after observing the language of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the court noted that the record of the conviction of the child cannot be preserved and has to be destroyed. The court further noted that any disqualification entailing from the conviction would have to be ignored and cannot be a detriment to the child in conflict with law in any manner including the public employment selection process.

The court upheld the order of the single judge bench.

Case: STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. BHAWANI SHANKAR MORTH

SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT 816 OF 2022