- (1.) 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. 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. 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. However, the F. I. R. does not indicate which particular student caused the injuries or did the damage.
(3.) 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. 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.;