Point of Law: The blame lies at door of official of petitioners, who had drafted OMR sheet and not with candidate who has followed instructions given in box no.7 of the OMR sheet. It is reiterated here that there is no allegation of impersonation against respondent, as rightly observed by learned CAT. There is no dispute about his signatures in Hindi as well as his thumb impressions.

JUDGMENT :

Talwant Singh, J.

1. The petitioners, i.e., Union of India and others, have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 16.03.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short “CAT”], Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application [OA] No.1302/2018 and Miscellaneous Application [MA] No.558/2021. The operative portion of the order dated 16.03.2021 reads as under:

"10. We, therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents to treat the applicant as a candidate who did not suffer any disqualification and proceed to consider the issuance of the order of appointment, on the basis of the merit secured by him in the written test. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On being appointed, the applicant shall not be entitled to any back wages, but the seniority shall be assigned to him on the basis of the rank in the selection list. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. In brief, the facts are that the present petitioners initiated a recruitment process to fill up 5679 vacancies of Khallasi (Group ‘D’) in the grade pay of Rs.1800/- vide Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2013 dated 30.12.2013. The respondent herein had applied in response to the said advertisement. The directions regarding filling up of the application form and the process of examination were also notified via the aforementioned recruitment notice dated 30.12.2013. The mode of selection involved a two-stage process including the written examination and the successful candidates had to go through the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The candidates were required to go through all instructions before filling their applications. Clause 10.7 of the instructions regarding rejection of candidature reads as under:

“10. Invalid Applications:

Candidates are requested to read all instructions thoroughly before sending their applications. Otherwise their applications are likely to be rejected on one or more of the following reasons:

xxx xxx xxx

10.7 Applications without signature or with signatures in capital letters or with different signatures at different places'

3. As per the detailed instructions, signatures of the candidates on the application form, admit card, attendance sheet and OMR sheet must tally. The respondent appeared in the written examination but his name was not included in the list of successful candidates short listed for PET. The reason was that signature of the respondent were in different style and format on the application form initially submitted by him and on the OMR sheet filled during the written examination. Hence, he was not called for second stage of selection process, i.e., PET. As per the petitioners, the candidature of the respondent was rejected in March, 2015 but he approached the learned CAT belatedly in 2018 by filing the aforementioned OA.

4. The present respondent approached the CAT against rejection of his candidature. The petitioner herein had filed reply affidavit before learned CAT taking specific plea of limitation, violation of instructions and non-joinder of necessary parties and had also relied upon certain judgments. In the meantime, respondent had moved an MA 588/2021 seeking report of the forensic expert. This MA was taken up on 16.02.2021 but learned CAT was of the view that OA itself could be disposed of finally. So, the matter was posted on 16.03.2021. The OA was allowed and disposed of giving directions to the present petitioners to treat the present respondent as a candidate who did not suffer any disqualification and proceed to consider the issuance of the order of appointment, on the basis of the merit secured by him in the written test. The said order of learned CAT has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.

5. The matter was initially taken up on 01.09.2021. Arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners and a limited notice, qua the aspect of the operative directions issued by the CAT, o