W.P.(C)/7623/2019 of VIJAY KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 7623/2019VIJAY KUMAR.....Petitioner

.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Mr. PranjalVyas, Mr. Aayush Tripathi and Mr. DhruvSikka, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

.....RespondentsThrough:Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSCwith Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate withMr. Dinesh Prasad, OS.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKARHON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAINJUDGMENT (ORAL)

04.11.2024

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1.This writ petition assails an order dated 19 February 2019passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench[1]inO.A. 4270/2018. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the order in itsentirety :

“MA No.4834/2018

MA is allowed for the reasons stated in the Misc. Application.We have heard Mr. Rahul Sinha, counsel for applicant and Mr.Shailendra Tiwary, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadingsand all the documents produced by both the parties.

2.In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the followingreliefs:

1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter

Signature Not Verified

“(a)Quash and set aside the result dt. 02.12.2015 passedby Respondents rejecting the candidature of the Applicant;

(b)remove the name of Applicant from the list ofrejected candidates and declare the Applicant herein eligiblefor appointment in the Employment Notice No. 220-E/OpenMkt./ RRC/2013 as per his merit with all consequentialbenefits;

(c) Pass any such other and further order(s)/direction(s) asthis Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

3.The crucial question arising in this case is whether therejection of the appointment of the applicant on the ground ofmismatch in the handwriting/signature of the applicant available onthe Application Form, ORM Sheet, D.V. papers etc. is sustainableat the final stage of the recruitment process.

4.The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant hadapplied for Group ‘D’ post in response to the EmploymentNotification No.220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2013 dated 30.12.2013published in the Employment News issued by the respondents. Hehad successfully cleared the written examination and physicalefficiency test. He was provisionally found eligible for documentsverification. But, however, at the time of documents verification,the respondents found that there is handwriting/signature mismatchon the relevant papers referred to above and on that basis thecandidature of the applicant was rejected.

5.The counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that noopportunity was given to the applicant to explain the mismatch inthe handwriting/signature, as such there is violation of principle ofnatural justice and on that ground he has prayed for the abovestated relief.

6.The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that theadmission of the candidate at every stage of the recruitment processis purely provisional, subject to satisfying the prescribed conditionand they have also stated that one of the conditions is that thecandidate should fill up the application form in his/her ownhandwriting as per the conditions of the recruitment, and thatduring the examination of the applicant’s case it was decided bythe respondents (Northern Railway) to get the expert advice fromthe Forensic Document Expert duly nominated by the Ministry ofRailwaysforthepurposesofreferencetomatchingthehandwriting/Signature on the relevant papers. The said DocumentsExpert after examining the relevant documents with reference to

the applicant advised that the hand-writing/signature of theapplicant do not match and accordingly his case was rejected bythe competent authority. They have also submitted that as thecompetent authority after getting the Expert Advice have taken aconscious decision to reject the case of the applicant forappointment, the OA of the applicant should be dismissed. He hasrelied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofChairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector ofMines & Anr. v Ramjee[2], Union of India & Another v SarwanRam & Another[3], Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary v State ofMadhya Pradesh & Anr.[4], Syndicate Bank & Ors v VenakteshGururao Kurati[5], Shankarshan Dass v UOI[6], T. Jay Kumar v A.Gopu[7], Bedanga Talukdar v Saifudaullah Khan and Ors.[8]andEkta Shakti Foundation v Govt. of NCT of Delhi[9]and also thejudgment of CAT/Chandigarh Bench in the case of Deepak vUnion of India and another[10]and also the judgments of CATPrincipal Bench in the case of Devendra Kumar v The GeneralManager( NR) and Others[11], Pradeep Kumar v UOI Through theGeneral Manager (NR) and Others[12], Rahul Mavai v Union ofIndia through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and Others[13]andPapendra Singh and Ors v Union of India through the GeneralManager(NR) and Ors.[14], Hajaru Deen Khan Vs. Union of Indiathrough the General Manager(NR) and Ors.[15], Praveen Kumar vRailway Recruitment Cell through the Chairman[16].

7.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtand also in view of the various judgments of the Tribunal, reliedupon by the counsel for the respondents and in view of the factsand circumstances referred to above, the OA is dismissed. No orderas to costs.”

2.We are constrained to observe that the order passed by thelearned Tribunal is extremely unsatisfactory. It does not partake of thecharacter of judicial order at all. The learned Tribunal has recorded

2 AIR 1977 SC 965

3 Order dated 8 October 2014 in SLP (C) 706/2014

4 (1994) 4 SCC 328

5 (2006) 3 SCC 150

6 AIR 1991 SC 1612

7 (2008) 9 SCC 403

8 (2011) 12 SCC 85

9 (2006) 10 SCC 337

10 OA 1355/HR/2013

11 OA 2356/2014

12 Order dated 16 December 2015 in OA 4143/2013 with connected OAs.

13 Order dated 11 July 2018 in OA 32/2016

14 Order dated 24 August 2018 in OA 2619/2015

15 Order dated 17 December 2018 in OA 440/2015

16 OA 2061/2015

Signature Not Verified

no finding. Paras 1 to 5 record the contentions of the petitioner, as theapplicant before the learned Tribunal, para 6 records the contentionsof the respondent including the judgments on which the respondentswere placing reliance. Thereafter, in para 7, without discussing any ofthe facts or why and how the judgments would apply, the learnedTribunal has proceeded to dismiss the OA merely stating thatdismissal was in view of the authorities cited prior thereto.

3.Such an order can obviously not sustain for an instant. It isaccordingly, set aside.

4.We are then left with the question of whether we should remandthis matter to the learned Tribunal or proceed to decide the case.

5.We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has sufferedthree years of litigation before the learned Tribunal and another fiveyears before this Court. It is eight years since the date when the OAwas filed.

6.The only issue in controversy was with respect to the identity ofthe petitioner owing to suspected mismatch between his handwritingon various documents submitted during the selection process.

7.During the course of these proceedings on 1 November 2022,the following order was passed by this Court :

“1.Original record has been produced. Perusal of the originalrecord prima facie shows that handwriting on the OMR sheet aswell as application form is of the same individual though there is

an opinion annexed which states that handwriting does not match.

2.Prima facie, we are not in agreement with the opinion. It is,however, observed that the application form as well as OMR sheet,both contain thumb impression. There is no forensic opinion withregard to the thumb impression.

3.Accordingly, it is directed that OMR sheet as well asapplicationformbesenttotheCentralForensicScienceLaboratory, Rohini for rendering an opinion on the thumbimpression as well as the handwriting and signatures of theapplicant contained therein.

4.Respondents are accordingly directed to send the same tothe CFSL for rendering an opinion. Director, CFSL is requested toexpedite the examination and submit report to the Court, beforethe next date of hearing.

5.List on 23.01.2023.”

8.Thereafter, the report of the FSL was obtained and submitted tothe Court in sealed cover, as recorded on 04 March 2024. The Courtposed certain further queries and directed the CFSL to furnish freshreport.

9.The said report has been furnished by the respondents in asealed cover, and seen by us.The report confirms that the thumbimpression of the petitioner on the documents furnished duringselection correspond to his admitted specimen thumb impressions.

10.As such, there is no thumb impression mismatch of thepetitioner as was originally suspected.

11.As the thumb impression of the petitioner has been found by theFSL to be matching with his admitted thumb impression, we do notdeem it appropriate to keep this matter any further. There is no reason

for us to doubt the credibility of the decision of the FSL.

12.In that view of the matter, the doubt regarding mismatch of thethumb impression of the petitioner on his application form, ORMsheet and other documents submitted by him consequent to theNotification dated 30 December 2013 pursuant to which the petitionerapplied, stands allayed.

13.Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Tribunal isquashed and set aside.

14.The respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner consequentto the Notification dated 30 December 2013 along with others, whohad applied with the petitioner consequent to the said Notification.The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefitsexcept back wages. The petitioner would also be entitled to notionalfixation of pay with effect from the date he would be appointed.

15.Let compliance with this order be ensured within eight weeksfrom today.

16.The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

NOVEMBER 4, 2024/ygClick here to check corrigendum, if any