Concealment of a juvenile’s minor criminal case does not justify automatic cancellation without individualized assessment.

The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Constable in Bihar Special Armed Police-6 after succeeding in the written and physical examinations.

In his verification form, he answered “no” to whether he had been accused in a criminal case. Verification revealed that he was an accused in Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016, registered under various provisions of the IPC.

The Commandant cancelled his selection by order dated 1 August 2025 for non-disclosure of the case.

The petitioner had been declared a juvenile in the criminal case. By order dated 17 October 2025, the Juvenile Justice Board disposed of the case after accepting his guilt and directing him to plant and care for 40 trees; the Board also noted his family circumstances and the absence of adverse reports or indications of criminal tendency.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation order by writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioner’s non-disclosure of the pending criminal case justified cancellation of his selection without an individualised assessment of the circumstances.

2. Whether, having regard to the petitioner’s juvenile status, the nature of the allegations and the Juvenile Justice Board’s order, the cancellation order required reconsideration.

In Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Supreme Court held that suppression must concern material information, and that an employer’s decision to cancel candidature or terminate service must be exercised reasonably and objectively; suppression does not confer an unfettered right to appointment, but the candidate is entitled to protection from arbitrary treatment.

In Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 5 SCC 264, the Supreme Court reiterated that suitability and relief must be assessed on objective criteria, considering the nature of the post, the timing and nature of the criminal case, the query asked, the candidate’s antecedents and circumstances, and the cancellation order; non-disclosure is not invariably disqualifying, and each case requires a holistic assessment.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had suppressed the pending case, which had been registered in 2016, but held that suppression alone did not conclude the inquiry.

The petitioner was one of 85 accused, had been a juvenile at the time of the occurrence, and faced allegations which the Court did not regard as serious. The Juvenile Justice Board’s direction to plant and care for 40 trees, together with its observations about the petitioner’s background and conduct, were relevant circumstances requiring consideration under the objective, case-specific approach in Avtar Singh and Ravindra Kumar.

The cancellation order therefore required reconsideration by the authorities.

It allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pass fresh orders, taking account of the Court’s observations, within four months of receiving or being presented with a copy of the judgment.

The Court did not itself direct the petitioner’s reinstatement or appointment.