Allahabad HC Orders Reinstatement of NVS Teacher Fired for Hiding 2011 Juvenile Case

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) to reinstate Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak as PGT (Mathematics), holding that his termination for non-disclosure of a criminal case was unsustainable because the offence dated April 18, 2011 was committed when he was a juvenile and the protections of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 apply.

A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra allowed Pathak’s writ petition and set aside the part of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order that had remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Through a recruitment process initiated in 2019, Pathak was selected and appointed as a PGT (Mathematics) at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gauriganj, Amethi. He joined on August 7, 2020, and began receiving his salary. However, within two months, NVS received a complaint alleging that Pathak had failed to disclose a pending criminal case filed in 2011.

In response to a show-cause notice, Pathak explained that the incident occurred when he was 17 years old, that the matter was civil in nature, and that he was unaware of a later charge sheet filed after a final report had earlier closed the case. Despite this, his services were terminated in November 2021 for suppression of information.

Pathak challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2021. The CAT, by order dated January 3, 2025, set aside the termination order after applying the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) and, noting that Pathak was about 17 years old when the FIR was lodged, remitted the case to the departmental authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order. NVS and Pathak both approached the High Court. NVS challenged the CAT order generally, while Pathak also challenged the CAT’s decision to remit rather than direct reinstatement.

The High Court recorded that a Juvenile Justice Board had, by order dated June 4, 2024, declared Pathak to have been a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident; that finding was unchallenged on record. Court noted the termination order’s brevity and the absence of any meaningful consideration of Pathak’s detailed reply, and observed that the department had failed to apply the Avtar Singh guidelines when it terminated service in 2021.

Critically, court analysed the interaction between the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (the old Act) and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (the new Act). It observed that Section 19 of the 2000 Act which contains a non-obstante clause provides that a juvenile “shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law,” and that Section 24 of the 2015 Act is broadly identical but contains an added proviso excluding protection where a child of or above 16 years is found to be “in conflict with law” by a Children’s Court.

Court held that the relevant date for determining which statute applies was the date of the alleged offence (April 18, 2011), when the 2000 Act was in force; accordingly, the additional proviso in the 2015 Act could not be read against Pathak.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi (2019), the bench reiterated that even disclosure requirements relating to criminal proceedings faced as a juvenile “would be violative of right to privacy and right to reputation” and that the law requires that juveniles be afforded a fresh start free from stigma. Court concluded that, in the circumstances where Pathak was a juvenile at the time of the incident and trial is still pending, non-disclosure could not be treated as a disqualifying suppression of material facts.

The High Court therefore dismissed NVS’s challenge to the CAT’s setting aside of the termination, but allowed Pathak’s petition to the extent that the CAT’s remand for fresh consideration was set aside. It directed immediate reinstatement.

The bench ordered the respondents to reinstate Pathak in service and grant all consequential financial and service benefits within one month from production of an authentic copy of the High Court’s order.

Case Title: Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti and 2 others vs. Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak and another

Order Date: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra

Bench: October 16, 2025