CW 5456/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5456/2006 Mukesh Sharma Versus State & (2) Ors Date of Order ::: 16/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RN Mathur & Mr. Mahendra Nahar, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl.Govt. Counsel for respondents State Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that despite final selection & being placed in the order of merit, petitioner was arbitrarily denied by respondents for appointment to the post of Police Constable pursuant to advertisement dt.14/06/05 (Ann.2). Advertisement was issued on 14/06/05 (Ann.2) for making appointment to the post of police constable in different districts/units & RAC battalions, in pursuance whereof, petitioner being eligible applied for. He having qualified in written examination & physical fitness test respectively held on 10/10/05 & 07/03/06, was called for medical examination on 09/03/06, in course whereof also, he was found fit for the post of Constable in RAC; and was finally placed at S.NO.13 in the order of merit. However, while he was not considered for appointment despite placed in the order of merit, he enquired from respondents' Office then CW 5456/06 //2// it came across that he was not finally considered for appointment on the premise of having suppressed material facts of criminal case registered against him in June, 2000. As alleged in instant petition, date of birth of petitioner is 10th May, 1987 and FIR- 351/2000 (Ann.3) was lodged against him along with other family members on 24/06/2000 alleging accusation for offences U/Ss 147, 448 & 323, IPC while challan was filed for offences U/Ss 324, 341 & 323, IPC in Cr.Case-411/2000 before Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui (Dausa) and since there was family feud with their neighbours, both the complainant & accused parties arrived at an amicable settlement & compromise, which was accepted and was consequently acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction vide order dt. 23/9/2000 (Ann.4). Counsel for petitioner submits that at the time of registration of FIR on 24/06/2000, which ultimately culminated into acquittal due to compromise between the parties vide order dt.23/09/2000 (Ann.4), he being a juvenile only of 13 years & 3 months must have been produced before the Juvenile Board and the bail too must have been granted in view of trivial nature of bailable offences allegedly under section 147, CW 5456/06 //3// 323, 324 or S.341, IPC; and that apart, his parents arrived at compromise which was accepted by competent court even with a very short span of three months of registration of FIR, it was not at all within his knowledge about criminal case being registered and its effect; and upon an interval of five years after registration of FIR, ibid, he attained majority and applied for the post pursuant to advertisement (Ann.1) and in these circumstances, denial of appointment to the post of police constable on aforesaid premise was arbitrary. In their reply, respondents inter-alia averred that since petitioner has willfully suppressed material facts while filling up his application form at Col.17, where he was to disclose about criminal case or FIR being registered or challan, if any filed against him irrespective of final conclusion in criminal case registered, respondents were justified in denying him appointment. In support, Government Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court (Full Bench) in Dharampal Singh Vs. State (2000(2) WLC 400) and so also of Apex Court in R. Radha Krishnan Vs. DG of POlice (2008(1) SCC 660). I have considered contentions of Counsel CW 5456/06 //4// for both the parties and with their assistance, pondered over material on record. The controversy raised herein is no longer res integra after the judgment of Full Bench in Dharampal Singh Vs. State (supra) that if applicant has willfully suppressed material fact or has not disclosed relevant facts as asked for in application form about criminal case/FIR being registered apart from challan if any having been filed and its effect, irrespective of its final fate and outcome, which can be a justification for denial of appointment to him. Apex Court has also observed in R. Radhakrishnan Vs. D.G. Of Police (supra), on which reliance has been placed by Government Counsel. Yet, a question arises in instant case is as to whether petitioner has willfully suppressed material fact in the facts of case at hand. At the time of registration of FIR on 24/06/2000, petitioner being hardly of 13 years & few months was a juvenile, it could not be possible for him to realize about fact of FIR being registered and its fate, besides the manner in which it was finally culminated into acquittal may be as a consequence of compromise between the parties to criminal case. However, under provisions of Juvenile Justice (Case & CW 5456/06 //5// Protection of Children) Act, 2000, if any criminal offence is committed, certainly a juvenile has to be produced before the Board and the bail is a matter of course subject to restrictions provided under the Act, 2000. However, in instant case, since offences alleged in FIR were of bailable nature, petitioner could not have been produced before the Board/Court and that apart, within a very short span of three months, the dispute being between neighbours, compromise was also arrived at in September, 2000, certainly petitioner being a juvenile was having no occasion to be party to the compromise and application was submitted pursuant to advertisement dt.14/06/05 (Ann.2) after almost 5 years of the incident. From the facts on record, certainly it can be inferred that he being a juvenile and taking nature of alleged criminal offences and incident, it ought not to have been within his knowledge as pointed out in instant petition, as well that it was never within his knowledge about such a criminal case being registered and what has been acted upon on his behalf either before or after compromise being arrived at, hence presumption indeed can be drawn from material on record and can be inferred that CW 5456/06 //6// being juvenile, it was not within his knowledge about criminal case being registered against him and if that be so, if facts are not within his knowledge, presumption can hardly be drawn that he has willfully suppressed material facts from the authority while not disclosing the facts as called for in Col.17 of application form, viz., criminal case registered & challan, if any filed against applicant; in the absence whereof, the premise on which respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner is not legally sustainable in the facts of instant case; and their action deserves to be set aside. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of police constable pursuant to advertisement dt.14/06/05 (Ann.2) based on his final selection alongwith consequential benefits including placement of seniority as per his merit, notional fixation of pay; however, will not be entitled for pecuniary benefits for intervening period during which he has actually not worked. All exercise to ensure compliance of this order be made within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/5456CW06-Rsrvd.doc