SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, GIRISH KATHPALIA, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar Gurjar – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5395 Of 2019
Decided On : 13-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Trivedi and Mr. Dhruv Kothari, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Adv with Mr. Dinesh Prasad (OS RRC)

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized adherence to natural justice in administrative decisions, ruling that cancellation of candidature without proper notice is impermissible.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment process - Cancellation of candidature due to alleged mismatch in handwriting - Tribunal's decision quashed for not adhering to principles of natural justice and for acting beyond its jurisdiction as a handwriting expert - FSL report confirmed identity through thumb impressions, establishing the petitioner's case. (Paras 12, 18, 22, 25, 27)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice must be followed in administrative decisions affecting candidates - Cancellation of candidature without show cause notice is impermissible. (Paras 6, 10)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner applied for Group D posts and was successful in the examination but faced cancellation of candidature due to alleged handwriting mismatch, leading to a challenge in the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:

The Tribunal's reliance on handwriting comparison was erroneous; the FSL report confirmed the petitioner's identity through thumb impressions.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the handwriting comparison and adherence to natural justice principles in the cancellation of candidature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal overstepped its role by acting as a handwriting expert and that the FSL report provided a definitive resolution of identity.

Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be appointed with consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Hari Shankar, J.)

1. The Northern Railway issued a recruitment notice, for filling up of 5679 Group D posts in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 on 30 December 2013. The petitioner applied against the said notice. He participated in the written examination which was held on 30 November 2014 and was declared successful for appearing in the next stage of selection, which was the Physical Endurance Test,[“PET” hereinafter], in the result declared in 2015. He cleared the PET and was called for verification of documents on 24 June 2015.

2. At the stage of verification of documents, the petitioner’s candidature was cancelled. The reason, as displayed on the website of the Northern Railway, read thus:

    “In terms of Employment Notification No.220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2013 dated 30/12/2013, published in Employment News dated 11-17 January 2014, a recruitment process to fill up 5679 vacancies in Pay Band-I Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.1800/- Group "D' Post was initiated. In Para 5 thereof detailed information on how to apply, general conditions and invalid applications with, clear stipulation that admission of all the candidates at all stages of recruitment would be purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions was prescribed. It was also stipulated in the notification/instructions that candidate should fill up the application form including the paragraph indicated in the application form in his/her own hand-writing.

Railway Recruitment Cell got your case examined from Ex. Government Examiner for Questionable Documents [GEQD] nominated by Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India, for matching of Hand-writing/Signature on the application form vis a vis the OMR Sheet, Document verification Proforma etc. The Document Expert has since tendered his opinion/advice to the effect that the writing/Signature on the application, OMR Sheet. Document verification proforma under examination do not match. Accordingly you have violated the examination condition regarding the candidates to fill up the application form including the paragraph indicated in the application form in his/her own hand-writing or it is a case of impersonation. Hence after taking into account all facts of your case it has been decided to reject your candidature for the above examination. You are further informed that any further action, if any, to be taken against you by Rly, Administration for above noted misconduct/violation of Examination conditions, will be taken up separately.

Take note that the issue regarding cancellation/rejection of candidature of candidates resorting to violation of examination conditions and misconduct of impersonation was a matter before the Hon’ble Courts/Tribunals and same has been settled wide orders dated 9.7.2014 in the case of Deepak Vs UOI OA No.1355/HR/2013 of Chandigarh Bench and orders dated 01.05.12 in OA No.1181/2012 Sonu v UOI and order dated 27.07.15 in OA No.2356 of 2014 Devendra Kumar Vs UOI by Principal Bench/CAT/Delhi & Apex Court Judgment in SLP(C) No.706/2014 i.e. UOI & Anr. Vs Sarwan Ram & Anr.

You stands informed accordingly through RRC/NR website, which is the prime source of dissemination of information to the candidates.”

3. The petitioner represented against the decision to cancel the candidature on 28 January 2016 and 7 April 2016. He submitted that, while he normally used to sign in English, the application form required him to enter his signatures in English and Hindi. In his Hindi signature, he entered his name as ^^fnus'k dqekj^^-

4. According to the petitioner, almost a year elapsed between the submission of the application and the conducting of the examination. In the OMR,[“Optical Mark Recognition”] sheet, which was to be filled up at the time of undertaking the written examination, the candidates were required to sign both in English and Hindi. The petitioner submitted that he did not remember that in his application, he had signed in Hindi only as ^^fnus'k dqekj^^- and that it was f

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top