1. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the District Magistrate, Mahoba, dated 18.12.2010, which records that petitioner has been punished in Case Crime No.427 of 2006, under Section 13 of the Gambling Act and a fine of Rs.100/- has been imposed and his character cannot be certified for appointment to the post of Constable. It is also observed that gambling is a serious offence amounting to moral turpitude. It is asserted in para 15 of the writ petition that petitioner has been selected for appointment to the post of Constable as an OBC candidate. The list of selected candidates is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, in which the name of petitioner figures at serial no.40 with the endorsement that petitioner has been declared unfit for appointment on account of his implication in the Case Crime No.427 of 2006. Based on the above materials petitioner has been denied appointment on the post of Constable. It is this decision which is challenged in the present writ petition.
2. The short ground on which the writ petition has been filed is that petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the offence, and therefore being a juvenile the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000'), as well as rules framed thereunder, which is denied to him. It is submitted that petitioner was not even competent to represent himself and the alleged confessionary statement accepting his guilt and consequential imposition of fine cannot be read against him. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.9594 of 2020 (Anuj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 30.4.2021, as also a decision in the case of Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, in Writ Petition No.53425 of 2007, decided on 11.3.2019. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.1136 of 2018 (Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 10.4.2020.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the impugned action on the basis of materials, which have already been referred to above. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed reiterating the averments made in the writ petition.
4. I have heard Ms. Anita Singh and Sri Hemant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and have perused the materials brought on record.
5. As per the petitioner's High School Certificate his date of birth is 25.12.1989. The date of alleged occurrence is 8.6.2006. It is, therefore, clear that on the date of alleged commissioning of offence the petitioner was only 16 years 06 months old and would clearly qualify to be a juvenile in terms of Section 2(l) of the Act of 2000.
6. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 provides as under:-
"19. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
2. The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be."
7. This Court in Shivam Maurya (supra) having taken note of Section 19 of the Act of 2000, has been pleased to observe as under in paragraph 10:-
"10. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 has been incorporated in order to give a juvenile an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past. It thus provides that a juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act. A "juvenile" on the date when the alleged offence has been committed is required to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which declares that all criminal charges against individuals who are described as "juvenile in conflict with law" be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. If a conviction is recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 19 (1) of the Act of 2000 specifically stipulates that juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further Section 19 (2) of the Act of 2000 contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing all the relevant records of such conviction to be removed after expiry of the period of appeal or reasons as prescribed under the rules as the case may be."
The Court has also observed as under in paragraph 12 to 15 of the judgment in Shivam Maurya (supra):-
"12. Section 21 of the Act of 2000 prohibits publication of the name of the "juvenile in conflict with law" with the object to protect a juvenile from adverse consequences on account of his conviction for an offence committed as a juvenile. The same reads as under:-
"21. Prohibition of publication of name, etc., of juvenile involved in any proceeding under the Act.-
(1) No report in any newspaper, magazine, new-sheet or visual media of any inquiry regarding a juvenile in conflict with law under this Act shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the juvenile nor shall any picture of any such juvenile be published:
Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing the authority holding the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the juvenile.
(2) Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees."
13. The sensitivity in matters relating to a juvenile or child or juvenile in conflict with law was deep embedded in the legislation as is apparent from Chapter II of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 therein gives in detail the fundamental principles to be followed in administration of the Rules.
14. The said Act is a beneficial legislation. The principles of such beneficial legislation are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of this statute. The concealment of the pendency of criminal case against the appellant-petitioner was of no consequence. As per the requirement of law a conviction in an offence will not be treated as a disqualific