ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The respondent cleared the selection process initiated by the Staff Selection Commission to be appointed as Sub Inspector in CISF. 3. In the enrollment form which is submitted he duly mentioned that he was an accused in F.I.R. No. 70/2009, Police Station—Bajju, District Bikaner for the offence punishable under Section 354, 447 and 509 IPC. He mentioned therein that he has been acquitted. 4. Noting that the acquittal was on account of the witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution and holding that the act of the respondent dis-entitled him to be appointed as Sub-Inspector, appointment was denied. Respondent proceeded to this Court and filed writ petition which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 08.03.2018. of the various reasons given by the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondent one reason is sufficient to sustain the impugned order. 5. Respondent was born on 05.07.1991 and when he was made an accused in the F.I.R. he was less than 18 years of the age. Thus, he was a juvenile. Unfortunately for the respondent, his counsel did not bring this fact to the notice of the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the trial pertaining to the F.I.R. 6. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that he was a juvenile when he was named as accused in the F.I.R. as aforesaid. 7. Whatever may be the circumstances of the acquittal the fact remains that when he allegedly committed the offence the respondent was a juvenile. 8. The learned Single Judge has highlighted this aspect of the matter. We need not go into other reasons given by the learned Single Judge. 9. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that because of the respondent's juvenility when he was made an accused, employment should not be denied to him. 10. The appeal is dismissed.