O R D E R (ORAL)

The applicant participated in the selection process initiated for Group ‘D’ post Pay Band-1 in the Northern Railways. After having been declared successful in all the stages of examination, he was medically examined. However, his candidature was rejected by the respondents by a communication dated 12.03.2015 (page 19 annexure A/5) for the reason “mismatch in handwriting/signature on relevant papers i.e., application form, OMR sheet, DV-papers etc”.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reason in detail as explained by the respondents on their website was that the candidature of the applicant was got examined from ex-government examiner for questionable documents, nominated by the Ministry of Railway, Government of India, for mismatch in handwriting/signature in the application form viz a viz on relevant papers i.e., application form, OMR sheet, DV-papers etc. The Examiner has opined an advice that the handwriting and signature of the applicant in the OMR sheet do not match and, therefore, it was the case of impersonation that invited cancellation of candidature of the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:-

“(a) To set aside the action of the respondent whereby the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground of mis-match in handwriting/signature on the relevant papers i.e. Application Form/OMR Sheet, DV-

Papers etc. (Annexure A-5).

(b) That the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post Group "D" against the advertisement employment notice No. 220- E/Open Mkt/RRC/2013 and to declare the result and to select and appoint the petitioner in case the applicant is in the select merit list.

(c) Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled in law and equity may also be granted to the applicant.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his claim argues that the reason so reflected in the impugned order cannot be sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that it was a case of impersonation at the end of the applicant. He submits that before cancelling of candidature, the applicant has not been provided any opportunity and, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. He states that precisely the same issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 731/2020 decided on 19.12.2022. This decision in OA No. 731/2020 has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 544/2024 dated 02.04.2024 in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs Santosh Meena. For the sake of better appreciation, the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced herein below:-

“1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 731/2020. The petitioner also assails the subsequent order dated 25.09.2023 vide which it's review petition was dismissed.

2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent/applicant by quashing the petitioner's decision to cancel the candidature of the respondent on the basis of a report submitted by purported expert. The petitioner has however been directed to forward all the relevant documents i.e., OMR Sheet, application form, document verification form and the undertaking submitted by the respondent to the CFSL within a period of 15 days for examination with a further direction to the CFSL to take a final decision in the present matter.

3. Mr. R.V.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as despite the report of an expert having the requisite knowledge and experience being available, the learned Tribunal has once again directed the documents to be forwarded to CFSL for examining the mismatch of the hand writing of the r