Pending Case Not a Disqualification: Telangana HC Directs Declaration of CWC Chairperson Exam Result
The Telangana High Court held that a pending case under the Juvenile Justice Act is not a disqualification under Section 27, and ordered the State to declare an applicant's written examination result forthwith.
Mrs. Justice Surepalli Nanda, sitting singly at the High Court for the State of Telangana, disposed of a writ petition on 23 June 2026 filed by Dr. Peddeli David, a former Member of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) for Adilabad District. The petitioner had been denied a hall ticket for the written examination for the post of Chairperson, CWC, on the ground that his online application had allegedly indicated “YES” against a column relating to misuse of power under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court found that Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 disqualifies only convicted persons, not those against whom a case is merely pending. The respondents were directed to declare the petitioner's examination result without delay.
The Dispute Before the Court
The Women Development & Child Welfare Department, Government of Telangana, issued a notification dated 22 July 2025 in DIPR R.O.No.5400-PP:CL/ADVT/1/2025-26 inviting online applications for the posts of Chairperson and Members of the CWC. The last date for submission was 8 August 2025 at 5:00 PM.
Dr. David, who had earlier been appointed as a Member of the CWC for Adilabad District vide G.O.Ms.No.18 of the Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Schemes-I) dated 5 February 2021, applied on 5 August 2025 and received an acknowledgment bearing Application ID: 100044.
The examination for the post of Chairperson, CWC, was scheduled for 19 April 2026 at centres in Adilabad and Nizamabad. When Dr. David attempted to download his hall ticket, the portal did not allow access. He filed W.P.No.11758 of 2026 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the hall ticket and permit him to sit the examination.
The Disqualification Question Under Section 27, JJ Act 2015
When the matter came up on 17 April 2026, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, appearing on instructions, informed the Court that Dr. David's application had been rejected because his online form bore a “YES” response against the column asking whether the applicant had been guilty of misuse of power vested under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Counsel for the petitioner disputed this. He contended that the petitioner had not indicated “YES” against that column and called for a police inquiry into the matter. He also raised the legal position under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Court examined Section 27 of the JJ Act, 2015 and recorded that a pending case is not a criterion for disqualification. On a plain reading of that provision, only convicted candidates are liable to be disqualified. A pending proceeding, without a finding of guilt, does not attract the bar.
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court's judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC 570, Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, where the Apex Court at paragraph 13 observed: “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved.” That presumption, the Supreme Court held, entitles a person to all fundamental rights including the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Interim Relief: Hall Ticket Issued, Result Withheld
On 17 April 2026 — two days before the scheduled examination — the Court passed interim orders directing the respondents to issue a hall ticket and permit Dr. David to appear for the examination on 19 April 2026 for the post of Chairperson, CWC, under Application ID: 100044. The Court simultaneously directed that the petitioner's result shall not be declared until further orders.
The respondents complied. Dr. David was issued a hall ticket and sat the examination on 19 April 2026. His result, however, remained withheld in view of the interim direction.
Why the Result Had to Be Declared
When the matter returned for final hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that interviews for the post were scheduled to commence from 25 June 2026. With the written examination result still undeclared, Dr. David stood excluded from the interview process despite having appeared in the examination pursuant to a court order.
The learned Government Pleader, appearing on instructions, did not dispute that the result was ready. The result had not been declared solely because of the interim order of 17 April 2026, not for any independent objection to the petitioner's candidacy at this stage.
The Court noted the submissions, the terms of its own interim order, and the fact that no further bar to the declaration of results had been identified by the respondents. The writ petition was ripe for disposal.
Outcome
Justice Surepalli Nanda disposed of W.P.No.11758 of 2026 on 23 June 2026 with a direction to the respondents to forthwith declare the result of the petitioner's examination held on 19 April 2026 vide Application ID: 100044. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition were ordered closed.