Allowed

Hanuman Narhari Dhanve v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2011WP/2281/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court directed through this High Bench set aside the dismissal of an original application and ordered the respondents to issue an appointment order for the petitioner as a Police Constable, holding that no disqualification exists for juvenile offences.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Respondents directed to issue appointment order for the petitioner as Police Constable against the next vacancy.

Hanuman Narhari Dhanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 2281.2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2281 OF 2011

¶4

Hanuman S/o. Narhari Dhanve,
Age : 22 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Nalwandi Road,

¶5

Beed, District Beed PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Secretary,
 Home Minister, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai

¶8

 (Copy to be served on G.P.
 High Court of Bombay,
 Bench at Aurangabad)

¶9

2. The Superintendent of Police, (Rural), Aurangabad

¶10

 T.V. Center Chowk, HUDCO,
 Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶11

.....

¶12

Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶13

.....

¶14

 DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2011

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - B.R. GAVAI, J.):

¶16

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶17

Heard by consent.

¶18

2.By way of present Petition, the petitioner
challenges the order passed by the learned

¶19

(2) WP 2281.2011

¶20

MaharashtraAdministrativeTribunal,thereby
dismissing the Original Application filed by the
present petitioner dated 15.7.2009. The petitioner
was selected as a Police Constable by the respondent

¶21

no.2. When the enquiry was conducted, the
petitioner's selection came to be cancelled vide
order dated 20.11.2008 on the ground that crime
no. 93 of 2002 was registered against the present
petitioner for the offence punishable under section
147, 148, 149, 435, 323, 452, 427 of the Indian Penal
Code. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. The learned Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal dismissed the Original Application vide
order dated 15.7.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the
present Petition.

¶22

3.Shri Nagargoje, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the ground on
which the selection is cancelled is pertaining to the
offence which was registered when the petitioner was
a juvenile. He submits that the petitioner was not
even aware about the said offence. However, insofar

¶23

(3) WP 2281.2011

¶24

as another offence i.e. crime no. 5 of 2004 is
concerned, wherein the petitioner was acquitted, a
specific reference was made regarding that in the
application form.

¶25

4. Smt. Gondhalekar learned A.G.P. on the contrary
submits that the ground on which the petitioner was
found to be disqualified is that he has concealed the
material information regarding his character in the
application form. She submits that the learned
Tribunal has therefore rightly dismissed the Original
Application.

¶26

5.From the perusal of the order dated
20.11.2008, it is revealed that the petitioner's
selection has been cancelled on account of crime
no. 93 of 2002. It is not the crime no. 5 of 2004

¶27

which has weighed with the authority, while
cancelling the selection of the petitioner. Insofar

¶28

as crime no. 5 of 2004 is concerned, the petitioner
has undisputably disclosed about the said crime in
his application form. It is also not in dispute that

¶29

the petitioner was acquitted with respect to that
offence. Insofar as crime no. 93 of 2002 is

¶30

(4) WP 2281.2011

¶31

concerned, it is the specific contention of the
petitioner that admittedly the said offence was
committed when the petitioner was a juvenile and he
was not even aware of the said offence.

¶32

6.When the petitioner has specifically
disclosed about crime no. 5 of 2004, there was no
reason as to why he should have withheld the
information regarding crime no. 93 of 2002, which is
admittedly committed by him when he was a juvenile.

¶33

In view of the provisions of section 19 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 it is clear that the person shall not
suffer dis-qualification even on account of
conviction in such an offence.

¶34

7.Insofar as the reliance placed by the

¶35

learned Tribunal on crime no. 5 of 2004 is concerned,
we find that the learned Tribunal has totally erred

¶36

in relying on the same. The learned Tribunal while
exercising the powers of judicial review, could have

¶37

only decided the order impugned before it on the

¶38

basis of the reasons given in the said order. The

¶39

said order had the specific reference to crime

¶40

(5) WP 2281.2011

¶41

no. 93 of 2002 and crime no. 5 of 2004 was not a
ground which had weighed with the authority, while
considering the aspect as to whether the petitioner's
selection should be cancelled or not. As a matter of
fact, the petitioner has also been acquitted in
respect of the said crime. In that view of the
matter, we find that the impugned order is not
sustainable in law. Rule is therefore made absolute

¶42

in terms of prayer clause (A) and (B). The
respondents are directed to issue appointment order

¶43

in favour of the petitioner against the immediately
next occurring vacancy.

¶44

 Sd/-Sd/-
 [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
arp/

Hanuman Narhari Dhanve v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Narhari Dhanve v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Yaldari Camp Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Royal Plastics Indutries through Proprietor Vs the Chief Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Districution Company Ltd. Aurangabad and Ors.

Shaikh Shaukat Ali Liyakat Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Syed Afzaluddin Ustad Abdul Samad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Madhavrao Gabajirao Pimpaliskar Vs the State of Maharashra and Ors.

Rekha Sayanna Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.