While observing that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are beneficial in nature, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere conviction for a trivial offence, which is not covered by the exception to the provisions of the Act, would not be a bar to the candidate securing employment in the Armed Forces.

The appellant approached the High Court challenging an order allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent candidate seeking issuance of an appointment order in his favor for the post of the Trade of Soldier (General Duty).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf stated, “We are in the full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the said offences are trivial and not covered by the exception to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Mere conviction of the respondent would not be a bar to the respondent securing an employment and it would also not make any difference in case the respondent had not disclosed the same in his verification form.”

“Furthermore, the Juvenile Justice Act does not carve out any exception with regard to the service to which the person is seeking an employment. In terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, the entire records has to be sealed and erased and nothing done by a person when he was a Juvenile, unless covered by the exception, is to be an embargo in his future”, it added.

Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Rohit Sohgaura represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant had issued an advertisement in 2018 for open recruitment to various posts in the Defence Department. The respondent applied for recruitment. He was successful in the physical, medical and written examinations for the said Trade. However, at the time of verification, he was not issued the appointment order. As per the respondent, he was informed that on account of his conviction in a criminal case, the appointment order was not issued. The Respondent filed the subject Writ Petition contending that the offence, for which the respondent was involved, was trivial and it was committed by him when he was a Juvenile in terms of section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Juvenile Justice Act).

As per the petitioner, there was no disqualification attached to the conviction of the said offence under any law. The Single Judge noticed that the allegations against the respondent in the criminal case were that he had uttered obscene words to the complainant and had assaulted the complainant with kicks, and also threatened him. Charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 294, 323, 34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Respondent pleaded guilty to the said charge and requested to be pardoned. The Juvenile Justice Board passed the final order, convicting the respondent but imposing a fine of only Rs.1000. The Writ Court noticed that the Juvenile Justice Board, in its final order of conviction, had referred to the provisions of the Act and held that the conviction would have no bearing on the future of the respondent.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the offences which were alleged against the respondent were trivial in nature under Sections 294, 506 and 323,34 of IPC. It was further noticed that the respondent also immediately realised his mistake and sought pardon. He was sentenced only to a fine of Rs 1000. The Bench took note of the fact that the Juvenile Justice Board had held that the conviction of the respondent would not come in the way of the respondent in future.

The Bench found no merit in the contention of the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India that different parameters must apply since the respondent had applied to the Military Force. Holding that the prior conviction of the respondent would not be a bar to his securing employment, the Bench stated, “The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are beneficial and for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the Juvenile to come back in the main stream and to have a fresh start in his future.”

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Union of India and Others v. Pushpraj Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:28700)

Appearance

Petitioner: Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain, Advocate Piyush Bhatnagar

Respondent: Advocate Rohit Sohgaura

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtChief Justice Sanjeev SachdevaJustice Vinay Saraf

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.