Justice Served: Ruling in the Case of CISF Appointment

In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court of India has issued a ruling in the case concerning the appointment in CISF. The decision, which impacts the future of the respondent, marks a crucial moment in the realm of juvenile justice and employment rights. The judgment upholds principles of fairness and reintegration, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. Stay updated on the latest developments in this case.


  • The respondent had disclosed all necessary information regarding the criminal case lodged against him in the past.
  • The Standing Screening Committee found the respondent unsuitable for appointment in CISF due to a criminal case being lodged against him.
  • The National Industrial Security Academy cancelled the respondent’s appointment on 03.06.2017 based on the criminal case registration.
  • The respondent challenged the cancellation and filed Writ Petition No.7522 of 2017, which was allowed by a Single Judge directing a reevaluation within 15 days.
  • The respondent was acquitted on 24.11.2011 as there was no evidence against him.
  • The Division Bench dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Single Judge’s order on 08.05.2018.
  • The respondent filed Writ Petition No.1310 of 2018, resulting in the order dated 08.03.2018 directing activation of the offer of appointment as Sub-Inspector in CISF.
  • The decision pertains to denial of appointment based on a past criminal case against the respondent.
  • The respondent was selected for the position of Sub-Inspector after appearing in written examination and physical endurance test.
  • Standing Screening Committee re-examined the respondent’s case on 02.01.2018.
  • Committee rejected the claim, stating the respondent was acquitted due to lack of evidence and compromise.
  • The offence in the charge sheet was classified as a serious offence.
  • Respondent was deemed unsuitable for the position of Sub-Inspector in CISF.

Also Read: High Court’s Legal Analysis in Guarantor Protection Case


  • The respondent was a minor when the charges were framed against him for offences under Sections 354, 447, and 509 of IPC.
  • The charges were never proved as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, leading to his acquittal.
  • The Juvenile Justice system aims to reintegrate juveniles back into society without stigma, with a principle of a fresh start and erasure of past records, except in special circumstances.
  • The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and 2015 emphasize the obliteration of juvenile convictions to prevent any stigma related to crimes committed as juveniles.
  • The girl and her parents decided to pardon the respondent by not providing evidence, ultimately resulting in his acquittal.
  • Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides guidelines for implementing the provisions of the Act.
  • The legislation ensures that juveniles, even if convicted, should not face job discrimination based on past juvenile offenses.
  • The respondent cannot be held against for getting a job even if he had been convicted, as he was a minor during the alleged offences and charges were framed against him.
  • Exception of special circumstances does not apply in this case as per Section 3(xiv).
  • The case is not about suppression of any conviction or charges against the respondent.
  • The respondent disclosed the charges framed against him and his acquittal due to lack of evidence from the complainant.
  • The disclosure by the respondent does not constitute suppression that could deprive him of the job he was selected for following due process.

Also Read: Legal Analysis of Eviction Notice Requirement in Rent Control Act Case


  • No ground found for interference with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Original Names shall be entitled to all benefits of the judgment of the writ Court within 30 days.
  • No orders as to cost.

Also Read: Legal Analysis of Arbitration Award Enforcement


Case Number: C.A. No.-009109-009109 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *