Juvenile antecedents and non-disclosure cannot disqualify a candidate from public employment.

The petitioner (born 07.02.1985) was involved in a criminal case in 2002 while he was a minor. He was subsequently acquitted on 28.12.2002 based on a compromise.

In 2013, the petitioner was selected and joined as a Forest Guard. However, on 03.01.2015, the respondents issued an order removing him from service on the grounds that he suppressed information regarding his criminal history in his affidavit and verification form.

The petitioner challenged this removal, asserting his protection as a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense.

1. Whether the respondents failed to consider the statutory protections afforded to juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act when passing the order of removal.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of a criminal case involving a juvenile constitutes valid grounds for termination of service without considering the merits of the acquittal and the nature of the offense.

Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (corresponding to Section 24 of the 2015 Act), which stipulates that a juvenile who has committed an offense shall not suffer disqualification attaching to a conviction.

Precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Ramesh Bishnoi (2019) 19 SCC 710, which protects candidates from the adverse effects of juvenile records during recruitment processes.

The court observed that the respondents passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2015 without considering the legal implications of the petitioner’s age at the time of the offense or the specific protections under Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The State’s counsel conceded that these aspects, along with the principles laid down in Ramesh Bishnoi, were not pondered during the decision-making process.

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard prior to his removal, violating principles of natural justice.

The respondents are directed to decide said representation afresh within three months, specifically considering Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Ramesh Bishnoi judgment, and providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The court clarified that the new decision must be made without being influenced by the earlier rejection order.