Allowed

Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2020SPLA/1136/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal allows the writ petition against the cancellation of the appellant's police candidature. The Single Judge dismissed the petition due to the appellant's false affidavit regarding a pending criminal case. The High Court holds that since the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence, Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, protects him from disqualification based on

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.09.2018 cancelled; Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 allowed; Petitioner to be reinstated by Respondent no. 6 within 30 days.

Shivam Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Reserved on: 24.02.2020

¶3

Delivered on: 10.04.2020

¶4

In Chamber

¶5

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1136 of 2018 Appellant :- Shivam Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶7

(As Per Samit Gopal, J.)

¶8

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.

¶9

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2018 passed in Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the petitioner therein cannot be given benefit for suppression of an information despite specific question in the affidavit along with the application form / verification form as to whether he had been convicted by any court of law. The said information as supplied by the petitioner was found to be incorrect by the authorities and as such the authorities concerned were well within their authority to cancel the candidature of the petitioner. The facts of the present matter are as follows:-

¶10

i. In the year 2015, the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow notified an appointment of police Constable and Constable in PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment, 2015.

¶11

ii. The appellant-petitioner applied in the same and on the basis of his academic qualifications he stood selected.

¶12

¶13

iii. The petitioner as was required to participate in a physical efficiency test who participated therein on the scheduled date and time and was declared qualified for the same.

¶14

iv. The appellant-petitioner was allotted district Deoria for training. He was required to file a declaration affidavit being a notarial affidavit / verification form which was filled by him which is dated 30.05.2018.

¶15

v. The appellant-petitioner vide communication dated 09.06.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh was required to participate in medical examination which was scheduled on 17.06.2018 where the appellant-petitioner participated and was declared fit and thus passed the said medical examination.

¶16

vi. Vide order dated 04.09.2018 the candidature of the appellantpetitioner was cancelled on the ground of material concealment of pendency of a criminal case against him which was not disclosed in the affidavit / verification form, which is the impugned order in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

¶17

A First Information Report was lodged on 28.06.2013 being Case Crime No. 173 of 2013 under Sections 147, 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kundrapur, District Azamgarh in which the appellantpetitioner was also named as an accused. The appellant-petitioner as was declared a juvenile, his case was taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh which vide order dated 07.07.2018 convicted the appellant and directed him to be kept under probation for a period of one year along with fine under Section 147 I.P.C. of Rs. 2000/-, under Section 323 I.P.C. of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 308 I.P.C. of Rs. 20,000/-, under Section 325 I.P.C. Rs. 10,000/-, under Section 504 I.P.C. of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 506 I.P.C. of Rs. 2000/- to be paid by the custodian of the appellant-petitioner in view of his committing the offence. It was further

¶18

¶19

ordered that as per the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C., 50 % of the fine as realised shall be paid to the victim.

¶20

An order dated 04.09.2018 was passed by the District Nodal Officer, Recruitment Centre, Azamgarh cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he has filed a false affidavit / self-disclosure letter in which in Para 2 pertaining to the disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, the candidate has disclosed as follows:-

¶21

(2) यह की मेरे वि�रुद्ध कोई आपराधि�क मुकदमा / मामला मेरी जानकारी में कभी पंजीकृत नहीं हुआ है और न ही कोई पुलिलस वि��ेचना (Investigation) लंवि%त है |

¶22

The said information is incorrect as on verification it came to light that a criminal case is registered against him on which he has been released on probation for one year along with fine. The said information was intentionally concealed and the affidavit is based on false facts.

¶23

In the present case date of birth of the appellant-petitioner is 05.02.1997. The First Information Report was lodged on 28.06.2013. The appellant-petitioner was thus aged about 16 years (to be more precise 16 years, 4 months & 23 days old) at the time when the F.I.R was lodged.

¶24

An affidavit / declaration as given by the appellant-petitioner states to be disclosed in its column 2 that there is no criminal case registered in the knowledge of the declarant / deponent and there was never any investigation pending. Further in clause 5 of the same it was to be declared that the declarant / deponent was never challaned by the police in any criminal matter. The candidature of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he had furnished a false notary affidavit dated 30.05.2018 asserting wrong and incorrect facts regarding the pendency of a criminal case against him. The said information was stated to have been concealed intentionally and a false affidavit is said to have been given.

¶25

¶26

The appellant-petitioner at the time of lodging of the said F.I.R was a juvenile. A juvenile has been defined in Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The same is extracted herein below:-

¶27

“(k) “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;”

¶28

Section 19 of the Act of 2000 reads as under:-

¶29

“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.

¶30

(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.”

¶31

Since the appellant-petitioner was under the age of 18 at the time of lodging of the said 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 (l) of the Act of 2000. The same reads as under:-

¶32

“(l) “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 f commission of such offence;”

¶33

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. It 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 Board (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which declares that all criminal charges 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 specifically stipulates that

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

At the present moment it will not be out of place to mention that in the present case the Juvenile Justice Board while giving its judgment and order dated 07.07.2018 being conscious of the provision of Section 19 of the Act of 2000 directed that the records or papers will be dealt with as per the provisions of Rule 99 of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The said Rule is extracted herein below:-

¶37

“ 99 . Disposal of records or documents.-- The records or documents in respect of a juvenile or a child or a juvenile in conflict with law shall be kept in a safe place for a period of seven years and no longer, and thereafter be destroyed by the Officer-in-Charge or Board or Committee, as the case may be.”

¶38

Section 21 of the Act of 2000 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 under:-

¶39

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

¶40

(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:

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

The sensitivity in matters relating to a juvenile or child or juvenile in conflict with law was deep embedded in the legislation as is apparent from 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.

¶45

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 appellantpetitioner 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.

¶46

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.

¶47

¶48

The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 is allowed and the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the District Nodal Officer, Recruitment Centre, Azamgarh is set aside. The respondent no. 6 is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order with all consequential benefits except for back wages following the principle of no work and no pay.

¶49

Order Date :- 10.04.2020 AS Rathore

¶50

(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lallu Singh Vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary (Irrigation) and 7 Others

Bhopal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary Urban Planning and 6 Others

Farooq and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Dubey and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others