JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia impugning the action of the respondents in not permitting him to join the duties, despite having an order of appointment in his hands. 2. Shorn of unnecessary and unwarranted details, the facts appertain for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected by the respondent -Employee State Insurance Corporation, as he was declared successful in the result of recruitment announced on 14.07.2016. 3. The petitioner was selected for the post of Multi - Tasking Staff at merit position No.1, in the category of outstanding sportsman; for which an order of appointment vide memorandum dated 16.08.2016 came to be issued. The said memorandum was subject to document and credential verification of the candidates. When the petitioner was not offered joining or permitted to join for considerable time, he enquired about the reasons for the delay; only to learn that he would not be allowed to join, in wake of pendency of a criminal case against him. 4. In response to the writ petition, seeking appropriate direction/mandamus, the respondents have filed a reply, in which they have iterated their stand that the petitioner cannot be allowed to join the duties, pending a criminal case against him pursuant to the FIR No.128 dated 31.08.2010. 5. Mr. B.S. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is true that the FIR aforesaid had been lodged against the petitioner, which is being tried by the Court. He nonetheless pointed out that as the petitioner was juvenile at the time of alleged commission of the offence, his trial is being conducted by the Juvenile Justice Court, Bhilwara, as mandated by the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Juvenile Justice Act). 6. Advancing the arguments further, he submitted that as the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the purported commission of the offence, by virtue of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the disqualification, if any, arising out of pendency of the criminal case cannot be taken into consideration. Section 19 of the Act of 2000, is being reproduced hereunder:- “Section 19. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. Section 19 of the Act of 2000, is being reproduced hereunder:- “Section 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.” 7. Without prejudice to the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India) and contended that the petitioner, who has been offered appointment on the post of Multi - Tasking Staff, the lowest in cadre (equivalent to Peon), pendency of criminal case cannot be treated to be a serious disqualification, dis-entitling him to be appointed. 8. Mr. M.R. Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner has concealed the factum of pendency of criminal case against him and looking to the charges levelled against him, viz. Section 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner cannot be said to be held to be candidate possessing good character and moral. In light of these submissions, Mr. Pareek argued that the respondents are justified in not allowing the petitioner to join the duties. 9. In response to the arguments advanced by Mr. Charan in light of Section 19 of the Juvenile Act, 2000, Mr. Pareek submitted that after advent of provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the provisions of earlier Act can neither be relied nor the benefit of Section 19 of the Act of 2000 can be claimed by the petitioner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after perusal of the material available on record; the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000; the Act of 2015; and after thoughtful consideration of the matter, this Court has reached to a conclusion that the writ petition at hand deserves acceptance: The reason for which are not far to seek. 11. At the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the petitioner was admittedly a juvenile, for which he is being tried by the Juvenile Court. The petitioner’s all rights including right to seek appointment will be governed by the provisions of Act of 2000. 11. At the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the petitioner was admittedly a juvenile, for which he is being tried by the Juvenile Court. The petitioner’s all rights including right to seek appointment will be governed by the provisions of Act of 2000. The protective umbrella in the form of Section 19 of the Act of 2000, obliterates or dilutes the disqualification, if any, arising on account of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. Given the fact that there is analogous provision in the shape of Section 24 in the new Act of 2015 also. 12. Needless to observe that both the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 and the Act of 2015 are not only beneficial in nature, but have been incorporated with a view to protect the rights and ensure rehabilitation of the juvenile. It would not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of the objects and reasons of both the Acts of 2000 and 2015:- “Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:- (iii) to bring the juvenile law in conformity with the United Convention on the Rights of the Child; (ix) to minimise the stigma and in keeping with the developmental needs of the juvenile of the child, to separate the Bill into two parts – one for juveniles in conflict with law and the other for the juvenile or the child in need of care and protection; Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:- 5. Numerous changes are required in the existing Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to address the abovementioned issues and therefore, it is proposed to repeal existing Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and re-enact a comprehensive legislation inter alia to provide for general principles of care and protection of children, procedures in case of children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with law, rehabilitation and social re-integration measures for such children, adoption of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children, and offences committed against children. This legislation would thus ensure proper care, protection, development, treatment and social re-integration of children in difficult circumstance by adopting a child friendly approach keeping in view the best interest of the child in mind.” 15. This legislation would thus ensure proper care, protection, development, treatment and social re-integration of children in difficult circumstance by adopting a child friendly approach keeping in view the best interest of the child in mind.” 15. Keeping in view, the avowed objects of the Juvenile Justice Act, it is the duty of the State and its instrumentalities to provide an atmosphere which further and facilitates rehabilitation of the Juveniles in conflict with law. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 is not only a shield protecting the rights of a juvenile, it is a tool too, to wipe off or obliterate the disqualification or stigma attached to a juvenile in conflict with law. 16. In view of the discussion foregoing, it is held and declared that denial of appointment to the petitioner is contrary to Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000/ 24 of the Act of 2015; arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner, enshrined under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The oppugned action of denial of appointment is also contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court is Avtar Singh’s case (supra), as the petitioner is seeking an appointment on the lowest ladder as Multi – Tasking Staff; for which mere pendency of a criminal case should not be treated as a hurdle or road block. 17. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to join the duties in furtherance of the appointment order dated 16.08.2016. For such purpose the respondent No.3 is directed to issue a posting/joining order to the petitioner on or before 15th December. Petitioner shall be treated to be in service w.e.f. 01.09.2016, however without any pecuniary benefits for the period from 01.09.2016 to 15.12.2017. 18. It the respondents fail to let the petitioner join by 15.12.2017, they shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/-, to be borne personally by the respondents No.3.