An acquittal by the Juvenile Justice Board in a case where witnesses turned hostile does not oblige the police to recruit the candidate, the Telangana High Court has held, ruling that the Juvenile Justice Act’s principle of a fresh start carries an exception for special circumstances and that the recruitment board was entitled to treat the case as one involving moral turpitude.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a candidate’s provisional selection as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable, upholding the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board’s decision to deny him appointment on account of a 2009 murder case in which he had been tried as a juvenile and acquitted [Petitioner v. State of Telangana and Others].
Justice K. Sarath held that the petitioner could not take shelter under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and that the impugned memorandums were in consonance with the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999.
Background of the case
The petitioner was provisionally selected as SCT Police Constable (Civil) in Warangal under a 2018 recruitment notification. His selection was cancelled by a memorandum of February 22, 2021 after the Medical Board at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital found a colour vision defect. He contended that illness at the time had affected the result and that a private hospital later certified his vision as normal.
He applied again under the 2022 notification and was provisionally selected as SCT Police Constable (TSSP). This time he disclosed in his attestation form that he had been an accused in Crime No. 27 of 2009 at Tadvai Police Station under Sections 302, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution in that case, he and his father had attacked his mother and sister, and his mother died on the spot. The Juvenile Justice Board, Warangal acquitted him on February 1, 2012, after the complainant and eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution. After a show cause notice, the Board cancelled his selection by a memorandum of June 25, 2025, citing moral turpitude.
What the parties argued
The petitioner argued that he was a minor when the offence was registered, that he was acquitted and never convicted, that he made full disclosure, and that under the Juvenile Justice Act all past records of a child should be erased. The inconsistent treatment across the two notifications, he contended, violated Articles 14, 16 and 21. He relied on Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi and Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.
The Recruitment Board submitted that the case was heinous, that the petitioner was old enough to understand his actions, and that the acquittal was not a clean one on merits since material witnesses turned hostile. It relied on Rule 3(F) of the SCT Rules, which requires the authority to be satisfied about a candidate’s character and antecedents, and Rule 3(G)(vi), which makes involvement in a case of moral turpitude a disqualification. It cited, among others, Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India.
First cancellation: delay and suppression
On the 2018 selection, the Court found from the petitioner’s own representations that he had not disclosed the criminal case in his attestation form at that stage, which amounted to suppression of fact. As he had also not challenged the February 2021 memorandum until his later selection was cancelled, the Court held that the question of setting it aside did not arise, on grounds of delay and laches as well as suppression.
Second cancellation: moral turpitude and the fresh start principle
Applying the tests laid down in State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane, including whether the act would shock the moral conscience of society and the person against whom it was committed, the Court held that the petitioner’s involvement in the case fell within moral turpitude under Rule 3(G)(vi). On the Juvenile Justice Act, it examined Section 3(xiv), which states the principle of fresh start with an exception for special circumstances, and held:
“As per the above Section, in special circumstances, the principle of fresh start cannot apply. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case of murder of his mother and attempt to murder of his sister and the past records of the petitioner cannot be erased for appointment of the petitioner as Police Constable as special circumstances.”
The Court found the decisions relied on by the petitioner inapplicable, and concluded that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the memorandums. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.
The petitioner stands acquitted in the 2009 case, and the High Court’s ruling concerns only his eligibility for appointment under the recruitment rules.
Case Title: Petitioner v. State of Telangana and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 22550 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Sarath, Telangana High Court
Date of Judgment: August 31, 2026
Appearance: Ramesh Chilla for the petitioner; Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) for respondents 1, 3 and 4; C. Raja Shekar Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board