M. KATJU, J. Heard Shri Sashi Nandan for the petitioner and Shri Lalji Sinha for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to send the petitioner for training as con stable in the R. P. F. It appears that the petitioner appeared in the examination for recruitment of constables in the R. P. F. in 1994. The petitioner passed the written and oral tests and was issued letter dt. 16-3-1994, true copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, by which he was informed that he had been selected. In pursuance of that let ter the petitioner reported on 24-3-1994. He was physically examined and found physi cally fit vide Annexure-3 to the petition. After the selection he was entitled to be sent for training. However, it appears that there were two criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In one case being crime No. 68 of 1988 the petitioner has been acquitted. It is Denied law that every judg ment operates retrospectively (unless ex pressly made prospective) and hence it will be deemed that the petitioner was never involved in the criminal case once he was acquitted. 3. As regards the other criminal case which is referred to in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, I asked learned Counsel for the petitioner to file a copy of the F. I. R. Accordingly, he has filed a supplementary affidavit and Annexure-1 of the same is a copy of the F. I. R. The petitioner is at serial No. 16 among the accused in that case which is a case under Section 147/148/332/333 /323 / 342/506/336/427/307 I. P. C. 4. I have carefully perused the F. I. R. A perusal of the same shows that on 19-8-1987 at about 10. 30 A. M. thousand of students were demonstrating against the increase of fees and against the Government shouting slogans against the then Chief Minister of U. P. Shri Veer Bahadur Singh. They burnt effigies of the then Chief Minister and Education Minister of Uttar Pradesh. These students while going in the procession are said to have thrown stones at some policemen and used lathis. The students were shouting slogans against the police and the Government and they did damage to some property and injury was caused to S. I. Shiv Badan Singh. These students while going in the procession are said to have thrown stones at some policemen and used lathis. The students were shouting slogans against the police and the Government and they did damage to some property and injury was caused to S. I. Shiv Badan Singh. However, the F. I. R. does not indicate which particular student caused the injuries or did the damage. 5. On the basis of this incident, it ap pears that the petitioner has not been sent for training and his selection has been can celled. 6. It may be seen from the F. I. R. that the petitioner has not been assigned any specific role. He was in the crowd of thousands of students. He himself was a student of Class XI at that time and the incident is about 10 years old when he was about 15 years old. Though this Court does not approve such kinds of incidents, yet this Court also realises that youths sometimes commit indiscretions and such indiscre tions should be sometimes condoned. This is not a case where the petitioner was in volved in a murder or dacoity or rape case and has been assigned a specific role. It was merely a case where a mob of students were protesting against the increases in the fees and indulged in slogan shouting and damaged property and beat up some per sons including police personnel. Though this Court does not have sympathy with stu dents who commit such kinds of violence yet in my opinion this Court should display wisdom in such matters. 7. It is interesting to note that a some what similar incident occured in England, reference to which has been made by Lord Denning in his book the Due process of Law (vide page 6 ). It appears that certain students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were very upset because the programme to Wales were being broadcast in English and not in Welsh. They came up to London and in vaded the High Court. While the hearing of a case was going on they strode into the well of the Court, flocked into the public gallery, shouted slogans, scattered pamphlets and sang songs. They broke up the hearing of the case and the case had to be adjourned. They came up to London and in vaded the High Court. While the hearing of a case was going on they strode into the well of the Court, flocked into the public gallery, shouted slogans, scattered pamphlets and sang songs. They broke up the hearing of the case and the case had to be adjourned. The Judge held them guilty of ex facie contempt and sentenced them to imprisonment for three months. When the matter came up in appeal before the Court of Appeals, Lord Denning observed: "i come now to Mr. Watkin Powells third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to show-and to show to all students everywhere-that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not be unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land-and I speak both for England and Wales-they strike at the roots of society itself and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. but now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the Judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishones ty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishones ty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards of the poets and the singers-more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong-very wrong-in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed. " Vide Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q. B. 114. 8. In my opinion, the petitioner deser ves to be treated with similar leniency. Ob viously he is not an ordinary criminal nor is accused of an ordinary crime. He was only one among thousands of students who were demonstrating and though their demonstration crossed limits, yet I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not be branded as a criminal for the whole of his life and debarred from employments. In such matters the approach should be to at tempt rehabilitation rather than destroying in individuals life for an indiscretion which he committed when he was very young. In my opinion, this Court should emulate the wisdom of Lord Denning in such cases. 9. In this connection I may also refer to the famous Novel les Miserables by the great French writer Victor Hugo in which one of the leading characters Jean Valjean was not permitted to be rehabilitated al though he had committed only a petty crime due to poverty. In my opinion, the modern approach should be of attempting rehabilitation rather than condemning a person for the whole of his life. 10. It would have been a different mat ter if the petitioner had been assigned a specific role in a case of murder, dacoity, rape etc. This is not one of those cases. Here the students were protesting against the in crease of fees. 10. It would have been a different mat ter if the petitioner had been assigned a specific role in a case of murder, dacoity, rape etc. This is not one of those cases. Here the students were protesting against the in crease of fees. No doubt while one has a right to hold a peaceful demonstration nobody has a right to indulge in violence. However I am of the opinion that to some extent indiscretion in youth should be con doned. After all youth will be youth. They are not expected to act as responsibly as mature people. Unless wisdom in displayed in such matters a non- criminal will be branded as a criminal all his life, like Jean Valjean. 11. Learned Counsel for the respon dents, Sri Lalji Sinha has relied on the decision in 1997 S. C. C. (L & S) 492, Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar. In my opinion, this decision is distinguishable. This was not a case where the students were taking out a procession protesting against the raising of fees or the like. In my opinion, in each case the particular incident has to be seen and one cannot draw any general con clusion without knowing the facts. 12. No doubt, the petitioner did not , give the correct facts while filling the decla ration form. Probably he did not do so be cause he was afraid that if he mentioned about the aforesaid criminal case he would be debarred from selection. Be that as it may, in my opinion, a human approach should be adopted. As Portia said in Shakespeares merchant of Venice, justice should be tempered with mercy. The petitioner has already been punished enough for his fault, in the sense that his appointment as constable has been held up for three years. The petitioner was 23 years of age when he filed this writ petition and he is now 25 years old. The incident in question occurred in 1987 and at that time he was about 15 years of age and was in Class XI. Thus for something which happened when the petitioner was only 15 years of age, he cannot be condemned for the whole of his life. That would be neither fair nor just. There is nothing to show that after that incident of 1987 the petitioner was involved in any criminal case. 13. Thus for something which happened when the petitioner was only 15 years of age, he cannot be condemned for the whole of his life. That would be neither fair nor just. There is nothing to show that after that incident of 1987 the petitioner was involved in any criminal case. 13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondent in cancelling the selection of the petitioner and not sending him for training is arbitrary and hence illegal. The writ peti tion is, therefore, allowed. A mandamus in issued to the respondents to send the petitioner for training as a constable in the Railway Protection Force. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .