Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ankur Chhillar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 27 October, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.48 of 2024
Orders reserved on : 17.10.2025
Orders pronounced on : 27.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
ANKUR CHHILLAR
S/0: KARAMVEER SINGH
AGE- 25
RIO: 58, VILL- GARHI RANDHALA, P.O. NIZAMPUR, DELHI,
PINCODE.-110081.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Naresh Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Shri Anand Singh)
VERSUS
1 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
ADDRESS- DR. SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE CIVIC
CENTRE, EBLOCK, 15TH FLOOR, JLN MARG,
NEW DELHI- 110002
2. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION
BOARD (DSSSB)
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
FC-18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI- 110092
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri D.S. Mehandru for R-1 and Shri Girish C. Jha for
R-2)
2025.10.30
RAVI KANOJIA
13:38:29+05'30'
Item No.47/C-4 2 OA No.48/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"a.) allow the present Original Application;
b.) direct the Respondent to issue the appointment letter to the Applicant which had been illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the Respondent authority.
c.) direct the Respondent to release all the consequential benefits since the appointment letter of the Applicant has been illegally withheld by the Respondent authority.
d.) pass such order or further orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As per requisition received from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'MCD'), the DSSSB advertised the vacancy of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code No.32/21 vide its Advertisement No.01/2021 (Annexure A/2) dated 04/03/2021 with closing date of online submission of application as 14.04.2021. The detail of the vacancies as per the said Advertisement was as under: -
Vacancies EWS UR OBC SC ST PwD-OH PwD-VH
1126 54 487 328 164 93 23 22
(inclusive) (inclusive)
2.1 On the basis of marks secured in written Examination Tier-I held
on 14.09.2021 and having been found eligible as per open merit, 1123 candidates (UR-445, EWS-51, OBC-328, SC-164, ST-90, OH-23 & VH-
22) were provisionally nominated as per their merit and 225 candidates (UR WL-100, OBC WL-70, SC WL-33, EWS WL-12, OH WL-05 & VH WL-05) were also nominated as waitlist candidates as per their merit 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 3 OA No.48/2024 vide Result Notice No. 1401 dated 01.07.2022 for the advertised posts subject to their fulfilling all other conditions of eligibility and also correctness of information furnished by the candidate in their online application form and e-dossier. The wait list panel of the candidates under post code 32/21 was valid upto 30.06.2023. The category-wise marks score by the last candidate provisionally nominated were as under: - .
Category UR EWS OBC SC ST OH VH
Marks 107.12 89.74 84.44 85.32 60.12 85.2 83.92
obtained
(out of
200)
The category-wise marks scored by the last waitlist candidate were as under::-
Category UR WL EWS WL OBC WL SC WL OH VH WL
WL
Marks 104.59 86.73 88.13 82.14 82.91 81.43
obtained
(out of
200)
2.2 The applicant had also applied for the said post and appeared in
the said exam. His details are as under:-
Name & Date of Birth Roll No. & Category Marks obtained
Ankur Chhiller 07.01.1998 318032101147 OBC 102.55
2.3 Vide Result Notice No. 1401 dated 01.07.2022, the applicant was
provisionally selected/nominated in OBC Category and his e-dossier was forwarded to the MCD. The selection of the candidate was further subject to verification of documents by the respondent No.1/MCD as detailed in Clause 11 of Result Notice No. 1401 dated 01.07.2022, which reads as under:-
2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 4 OA No.48/2024 "11. The Competent Authority of the Department concerned shall issue the appointment letters to the candidates after being satisfied about his/her eligibility as laid down in the Recruitment Rules and after verification of the correctness of information furnished in the application form and the documents related to education qualification, age and other essential certificates as per Govt. of India instructions issued in the regards vide MHA OM NO. 2129/54-RPS, 19/11/54."
2.4 The respondent (MCD) vide letter dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure A/3) called the applicant for verification of documents.
2.5 The applicant submitted that he was required to submit the documents regarding any criminal/other case registered/pending cases against the candidates. Thereafter, the applicant had given the details of the FIR through which in the investigation the applicant's name was alleged. It is contended that the applicant was juvenile/minor and his age was only 17 years old when the FIR (FIR No.797/2015) [Annexure A/4 (Colly)] was registered. The applicant has rendered all necessary information regarding alleged criminal case lodged against him and did not concealed any material facts from the MCD in any manner whatsoever.
2.6 Thereafter, the MCD sent intimation letter dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure A-5) to the applicant seeking the following:-
"1. Submission of valid proof of residence prior to 08.09.1993.
2. Court case (Juvenile case) against the candidate. Documents related to court case required. The present status of the case is not informed by the candidate.
You are directed to present on 19.01.2023 at MCPS Turkman Road No.01 at 10:00 AM. You are also directed to bring all original documents along with latest status of FIR/Court case."
2.7 The applicant has submitted his representation to the MCD on 11.04.2023 (Annexure A-6) stating that he has submitted all the required documents but appointment letter has not been issued to him 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 5 OA No.48/2024 after lapse of three months approximately and has also placed reliance of the Orders/Judgments of this Tribunal in OA No.2870/2011 dated 19.1.2012, of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 14.12.2017 in WP (C) No.6062/2017 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9109/2019 dated 29.11.2019. Reliance has also been made to Section 19 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which provides that 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."
2.8 However, instead of deciding the said representation, the respondent/MCD vide letter dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure A-7) directed the applicant to report on 26.05.2023 to the Deputy Director of Education, Teacher Recruitment Cell regarding pending court case/FIR.
2.9 Thereafter, MCD issued impugned order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure A-1) to the applicant intimating him as under:-
"..your name has been recommended for the post of Special Educator (Primary) under post code 32/21. As FIR/Court case is pending against you, as per circular No.D/ADE/TRC/Edn./2011/1189 dated 23.06.2011, the candidate who is facing a criminal trial under any section of IPC or against whom FIR has been registered will not be given the appointment. However, their case will be kept in abeyance for the period of three years on their request supported with an affidavit that they will not claim any seniority/back wages on getting appointment after acquittal (Copy enclosed).
Earlier you were called vide Ref. no. mentioned above for the same, but you failed to submit the affidavit till date. You are hereby provided last and final opportunity to submit the affidavit by 18.12.2023, failing which your candidature shall stand cancelled and the dossier will be returned to DSSSB.
No further communication will be entertained in this regard."
2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 6 OA No.48/2024 2.10 Thereafter, the applicant vide his representation dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure A-9) submitted the present status of the said pending case, the contents of the said representation read as under:-
"Please refer your esteemed office letter dated 5th December 2023 vide which I Ankur Chhillar S/o Sh. Karamveer Singh is directed to report on 12th December 2023 at 10.00 AM in the office of the Worthy DDE (TRC) with the present status of the pending court case/FIR against me. In this regard, it is submitted that my case having FIR number 797/15 is pending before the Hon'ble Court of JJB-1 (JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD (UNDEH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015), Seva Kutir, Kingsway camp for evidence whose last date of hearing was 17th November 2023 and next date of hearing is 16th January 2024.
Further, vide your esteemed office letter dated 5th December 2023, it is informed that in reference to your esteemed office letter number D/DDE/TRC/EDN./MCD/HQ/2023/2087 dated 19th May 2023, I was directed to report to the DDE (TRC) (HQ), Education department, MCD, but I failed to rep0rt on the date i.e. 26th May 2023 and afterward even after telephonic conversation, which is incorrect. As directed by your esteemed office, I appeared before the DDE (TRC) on dated 26th May 2023 (The same can be confirmed from the gate pass entry of civic centre of dated 26th May 2023 and CCTV footage) to submit my present status of case. However, when I appeared before the Worthy DDE (TRC), I was verbally directed to report her subordinate of her office. Accordingly, I report to the subordinate staff of your office who verbally asked me to submit my case status and I informed the same to him. Thereafter, till date neither I received any telephonic message nor letter (except letter dated 5th December 2023) from your estate office regarding submission of my present case status. Further, I assured you that as and when asked by your esteemed office, I will submit my case present status.
Further, I would like to draw your kind attention towards my application dated 11th April 2023 vide which I requested your good self for consideration of my appointment in a reference to various hon'ble courts orders/judgements vide which it was uphold that appointment in the matter of a Juvenile court case cannot be withheld irrespective of being accused or convicted (the same is mentioned in the u/s 24 of juvenile act.
Therefore you are requested to issue my appointment order at earliest."
2.11 Thereafter, the applicant submitted a letter dated nil address to Deputy Director of Education, Teacher Recruitment Cell, Education Department, MCD stating as under:-
2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 7 OA No.48/2024 "This is in with reference to your communication/letter no. D/DDE/TRC/EDN./MCD/HQ/2023/2455 date 12.12.2023 requiring me to file an affidavit and the lines which are untenable in law since the circular no. D/ADE/TRC/Edn./2011/1189 dated 23.06.2011 of your esteemed office is not applicable to the cases of Juvenile, as the said circular didn't mention the matter specifically pertains to Juvenile/Juvenile turned Adult or proceedings pending/completed before Juvenile Justice Boards. Further, as desired by your esteemed office vide letter no. D/DDE/TRC/EDN./MCD/HQ/2023/2445 dt. 05/12/2023, I have duly apprised the status of my case and given the necessary details vide my communication submitted by hand on 12.12.2023. (copy enclosed for ready reference). The details mentioned, therein are self-explanatory consequently, I am hereby requesting you to allow me to join in the duties without insisting on an affidavit language whereof does not confirm the requirement of law."
2.12 Hence, this OA has been preferred by the applicant seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their replies and the applicant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by MCD.
4. Shri Naresh Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant mainly argued that the MCD cited the circular dated 23.06.2011 as the basis for withholding the appointment to the applicant. However, the said circular has no applicability to the case in hand as it cannot apply on the face of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and the applicant's case is totally covered under the provisions of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which reads as under:-
"24 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law."
4.1 As such the respondents have blindly relied upon the said circular ignoring the fact that the said circular cannot come in the way of denying appointment to the applicant on the fact of the said 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 8 OA No.48/2024 provisions of the Act ibid as interpreted and applied in the following decisions:-
I. Lokesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattishgarh and another (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 851 of 2025) decided on 18.022025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
II. Union of India and others vs. Ramesh Bishnoi [Civil Appeal No. 9109 of 2025] decided on 29.11.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
III. Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in AIR (2022) SCC 2829;
IV. Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) No.6062/2011 decided on 12.12.2017 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (paras 9, 10, 11); and V. Vikash vs. Govt. of NCTD and others in OA No.158 of 2019 and other connected OAs decided on 08.11.2023 by this Tribunal.
5. Shri Girish C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, i.e., DSSSB, has submitted that they have conducted the recruitment to the post of Special Educator (Primary) as requisitioned by the MCD by advertising the said vacancies and held the examination and later on declared the results of various categories as mentioned in the short reply and forwarded the e-dossiers of the selected candidates provisionally to the MCD for further verification of the documents of the selected candidates as per the provisions of Clause 11 of the said advertisement.
5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the appointment to the applicant has been denied by the MCD due to a pending criminal case 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 9 OA No.48/2024 against him which was initiated against him when he was a juvenile. As the issuance of appointment letter in favour of the applicant has been denied by the MCD vide letter dated 12.12.2023, which has been challenged by the applicant in this OA, the main course of action in the matter is required to be submitted by the MCD, i.e., respondent no.1 being the Appointing Authority and custodian of RRs for the post of Special Educator (Primary) and therefore, the DSSSB should be exempted from Memo of Parties as no cause of action lies against DSSSB.
6. Shri D.S. Mehandru, learned counsel appearing of MCD has submitted that the action of the respondent is legal and valid in terms of the circular of Education Department dated 23.06.2011. According to the said circular, 'The candidates who are facing criminal trial under any section of IPC or against whom a FIR has been registered, will not be given appointment. However, their case will be kept in abeyance for a period of three years on their request supported with an undertaking that they will not claim any seniority/back wages on getting appointment after acquittal."
6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that MCD, i.e., the respondent No.1, issued a letter dated 12.12.2023 to the applicant calling upon him to complete the requisite formalities contained therein, however the applicant refused to do so vide his reply dated 14.12.2023. It is further submitted that the respondents have not denied the job to the applicant but has deferred his appointment in terms of their policy which action of the respondent is legal and valid. Thus, the respondents have not 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 10 OA No.48/2024 acted arbitrarily and irresponsibly by withholding the appointment letter of the applicant. As already submitted, the applicant had been arrested, prosecuted and kept in detention by the Court of law under Section 364/365/302/120B. In terms of the circular of Education Department, MCD dated 23.06.2011, the candidate who are facing criminal trial under any section of IPC or against whom a FIR has been registered, will not be given appointment. However, their case will be kept in abeyance for a period of three years on their request supported with an undertaking that they will not claim any seniority/back wages on getting appointment after acquittal. Thus, there is no illegality in the action taken by the MCD.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants.
8. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments cited supra, we are of the considered view that the following issue is required adjudication in the instant case:-
(i) "Whether the action of the respondent No.1 i.e. MCD in withholding the appointment of the applicant to the post of Special Educator (Primary) under Post Code 32/21 on the ground of a pending criminal case registered when he was a juvenile, is sustainable in law, particularly keeping in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and binding judicial precedents?"
2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 11 OA No.48/2024 ANALYSIS
9. It is not in dispute that the FIR in question (FIR No. 797/2015 under Sections 364/365/302/120-B IPC) was registered when the applicant was 17 years of age and was, therefore, a juvenile in conflict with law within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act. The proceedings against him were pending before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB-I), Seva Kutir, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law."
9.1 The use of the non-obstante clause i.e., "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law" clearly overrides any contrary administrative instruction or circular. Thus, the respondent/MDC should have examined the case of the applicant as per above statutory provisions. The above statutory provision makes it clear that the applicant cannot suffer any disqualification, much less at the stage when the proceedings are still pending.
10. The respondent No.1, i.e., MCD has relied upon its circular dated 23.06.2011, which provides that candidates facing criminal trial or against whom FIR(s) is/are registered will not be appointed and their cases shall be kept in abeyance for three years. Such a circular, being only an executive instruction, cannot have precedence over a statutory mandate conferred by Parliament through Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The said circular also makes no distinction between adult 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 12 OA No.48/2024 offenders and juveniles, and therefore, its blanket application to juveniles is arbitrary and contrary to law.
11. Recently, in Lokesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.819/2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 851/2025), decided on 18.02.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once a person was a juvenile in conflict with law, he cannot be denied employment on account of the criminal case registered when he was a minor. The Court emphasized that the protection under Section 24(1) of the Act ibid is absolute and extends even to employment opportunities. In this regard, it is profitable to refer the relevant paras of the said judgment, which read as under:-
" 10. A bare perusal of the statute reveals that the legislative design of Section 24 is emphatically protective in nature. By expressly stating that "a child ... shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction," the provision carves out a unique sphere of immunity for individuals whose offences are adjudicated under the juvenile justice framework. This principle is rooted in the broader humanitarian object of the JJ Act, 2015- to rehabilitate and reintegrate juveniles into society, free from the stigma of their past conflicts with law.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. It needs to be emphasised that Section 24(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 also contemplates the destruction of relevant conviction records after a certain period, underscoring the Legislature's intent to ensure that a juvenile's past transgression does not perpetually hinder his future. By its very nature, the statute aims to accord a fresh start to juveniles who have served whatever rehabilitative or corrective measure was deemed appropriate by the Board. Where such conviction details continue to appear in public or official documents, especially those bearing upon future employment prospects, the underlying legislative safeguard is manifestly undermined.
13. Furthermore, the JJ Act, 2015 emphasis on a child-centric approach is reinforced by Section 3(xiv) thereof, which encapsulates the "principle of fresh start," making it clear that "all past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances." Here, the offence in question; misbehaviour, verbal abuse, and physical assault under Sections 294, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, cannot be described as heinous. Nor is there any indication that the Appellant poses a continuing threat to public safety or security. Hence, continuing to reflect the Appellant's juvenile record in an official certificate directly conflicts with the rehabilitative policy that underpins the Act. This 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 13 OA No.48/2024 principle has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi, in the following portion:
"8. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30-6- 2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 5-9-1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24- 11-2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too, the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3, it is clearly provided as follows:
"3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in special circumstances.""
14. The High Court, in dismissing the Appellant's writ petition, emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy to challenge the conviction itself. While it may be true that the Appellant can pursue an appeal or revision on the merits of the conviction, that reasoning overlooks his core complaint regarding the enduring disqualifying effect of such conviction, a consequence that the JJ Act, 2015 expressly seeks to nullify. Irrespective of whether the conviction is left intact, Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015 protects juveniles from suffering ongoing disqualification in adulthood. Thus, relegating the Appellant solely to a remedy for quashing the conviction does not adequately address the injury caused by the continued disclosure of his juvenile record.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
16. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Impugned Order fails to recognize the proper scope and operation of Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015. By dismissing the Appellant's challenge on grounds of an alternative remedy, the High Court inadvertently frustrates the Legislature's mandate that protects a rehabilitated juvenile's adult life prospects from the part conflict in law." 11.1 In the aforesaid recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 14 OA No.48/2024 of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) that a candidate who was dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be disqualified from public employment merely because of past juvenile proceedings, as the Act provides a complete legal amnesty against any such disqualification. 11.2 In the case of Mukesh Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that once an individual has been treated as a juvenile, the criminal record cannot operate as a disqualification for public service. The relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"9. In the present case, the record reveals that the Juvenile Justice Board had acquitted the petitioner for the offence in question and, therefore, this was even otherwise, not a case of conviction for any offence. It is also noteworthy that Section 21 of the Act prohibits publication of the name of the „juvenile in conflict with law‟, the underlying object of the said provision being to protect a juvenile from any adverse consequences on account of the conviction for an offence, committed as a juvenile.
10. Given the aforesaid position, the contention of the respondents is that petitioner was under an obligation to have disclosed the information relating to the pendency of the criminal case against him in respect of an incident that had taken place when he was all of twelve years, would run contrary to the very spirit of the Act. Keeping in mind the fact that the object of the Act is to ensure that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with law, in our view, once the juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under the said enactment, there was no good reason for the respondents to have insisted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information relating to the allegations against him pertaining to an offence that was committed during his childhood where he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and subsequently acquitted. We may add here that even when police verification in respect of the petitioner was being conducted on the directions of the respondents, the concerned police officials ought to have refrained from revealing the information pertaining to the petitioner in the case in question, since he was a juvenile at that point in time. This was in fact a gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under the Act."
12. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we observe that admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile, i.e., of the aged of 17 years, at the time of the alleged incident, the criminal case was pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, and not before a regular criminal court. There is no conviction against the applicant; rather, he 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 15 OA No.48/2024 has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in the said FIR, as is evident from the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-I, in FIR No. 797/2015, P.S. Prashant Vihar. The said order clearly records that the applicant was acquitted of the charges, and therein it is further observed that even if the applicant had been convicted in the aforesaid case, such conviction could not have been held against him for the purpose of public employment, in view of the statutory protection available under the Juvenile Justice Act.
13. At this stage, we also observe that the circular dated 23.06.2011 is subordinate legislation and cannot defeat/frustrate a statutory right under Section 24 of the Act ibid. Therefore, the reliance placed by MCD on the said circular is misplaced, and its action of keeping the applicant's appointment "in abeyance" is unsustainable in law. The applicant has also not suppressed any material fact. Rather, he disclosed the pending juvenile case and complied with all directions of the respondents.
14. The Article 14 of the Constitution mandates equal treatment before law. Denying appointment to a candidate solely because of juvenile proceedings, while granting it to others with clean antecedents, amounts to invidious discrimination not founded on any rational classification. Moreover, it defeats the rehabilitative object of the Juvenile Justice legislation.
15. In view of the above discussion and binding precedents, we hold that the circular dated 23.06.2011 cannot be applied to a case where the criminal proceedings relate to a juvenile. The applicant's appointment 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 16 OA No.48/2024 cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance merely on account of pendency of proceedings before the JJB. As such, the action of the respondent No.1 i.e. MCD in not issuing the appointment letter to the applicant is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
16. In the result, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:
(i) the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 is quashed and set aside, being contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
(ii) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to appoint the applicant on the post of Special Educator (Primary) as per his merit and subject to his being found suitable after medical examination or any other criteria, except the one regarding juvenile acts, as discussed hereinabove; and
(iii) The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed with by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; and
(iv) It is made clear that the applicant shall be entitled to wages only from the date of assumption of charge of the post in question.
17. Before parting with this Order, we are constrained to observe that the action of respondent no.1 in the present matter reflects a gross disregard for the rule of law. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondent/MCD has acted in a manner showing little respect for statutory provisions and legal mandates. The authorities functioning under respondent no.1 have failed to apply their minds and have repeatedly disregarded the clear statutory requirements contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, 2025.10.30 RAVI KANOJIA 13:38:29+05'30' Item No.47/C-4 17 OA No.48/2024 choosing instead to rely upon an ambiguous internal circular issued by the respondent itself. Such conduct on the part of respondent no.1/MCD is highly deplorable and unbecoming of a public authority entrusted with statutory obligations. We are of the considered view that the officials concerned have wilfully delayed the appointment of the applicant as Special Educator (Primary) and thereby frustrated the applicant's rightful claim. In view of such deliberate and unjustified defiance, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each upon the then Director/Additional Commissioner (Education), MCD and the then Deputy Director (Education), Teacher Recruitment Cell, MCD. The said amount shall be recovered from the concerned officials personally and deposited into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
18. All pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2025.10.30
RAVI KANOJIA
13:38:29+05'30'