(1) WP 2281.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2281 OF 2011 Hanuman S/o. Narhari Dhanve, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Education, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Nalwandi Road, Beed, District Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Home Minister, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Superintendent of Police, (Rural), Aurangabad T.V. Center Chowk, HUDCO, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - B.R. GAVAI, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned (2) WP 2281.2011 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, 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 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. 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 (3) WP 2281.2011 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. 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. 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 which has weighed with the authority, while cancelling the selection of the petitioner. Insofar 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 the petitioner was acquitted with respect to that offence. Insofar as crime no. 93 of 2002 is (4) WP 2281.2011 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. 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. 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. 7. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on crime no. 5 of 2004 is concerned, we find that the learned Tribunal has totally erred in relying on the same. The learned Tribunal while exercising the powers of judicial review, could have only decided the order impugned before it on the basis of the reasons given in the said order. The said order had the specific reference to crime (5) WP 2281.2011 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 in terms of prayer clause (A) and (B). The respondents are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner against the immediately next occurring vacancy. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/