Cancellation of candidature must follow principles of natural justice and cannot rely solely on expert opinion without corroborative evidence.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial):

The challenge in the present Original Application is to an Order dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure A-1) whereby candidature of the applicant in the recruitment of Sub-Inspector [in short S.I.] in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector [in short A.S.I.] in CISF Examination-2014 has been cancelled and he is debarred for a period of three years from the date of written examination. So also, applicant is seeking direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of S.I. (BSF) as per the merit list with all consequential benefits.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. Basic facts that would require notice are not in dispute that Staff Selection Commission [for brevity herein after referred as ‘SSC’] issued advertisement dated 15.03.2014 and applicant appeared with Roll No.2201076374 for recruitment of S.I. in Delhi Police, CAPFs and A.S.I. in CISF Examination-2014 held on 22.06.2014. Applicant was declared qualified and called for interview on 27.02.2015. Based on the result, he was called for Medical examination on 13.10.2015. He was declared selected for the post of S.I. in B.S.F. Respondent no.3/SSC vide Memo dated 27.08.2015, thereafter called the applicant to appear along with identity proof and two photographs for verification of signatures and handwritings etc. On submission of necessary identify proof and specimen signatures etc., Respondent no.3/SSC issued impugned order dated 22.12.2016 and cancelled his candidature debarring him for a period of three years from the date of examination i.e. 22.06.2014.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that respondents had taken 21 samples of writings and signatures on twenty one sheets written by the applicant and the CFSL Report, mismatch is only shown to some of the samples marked as S-4 to S-7, S-10, S-12 to S-21, whereas the applicant furnished samples of writings and signatures on S-1 to S-21 exhibits. There is no mismatch of applicant’s handwritings and signatures of all the samples i.e. S-1 to S-21 with questioned exhibits-Q1 to Q13. The signatures and writing samples taken after a lapse of two years from the date of examination held on 22.06.2014 and generally there is variation due to time period. Respondents taken specimen of thumb impressions during the time of exam and there is no finger print expert report by the CFSL. So also, the respondents did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the applicant before issuance of the impugned Order dated 22.12.2016 and arbitrarily cancelled the candidature after having been selected.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents vociferously canvassed that the specimens of handwritings, signatures and thumb impressions were taken and sent to the CFSL for verification and vide reports dated 18.05.2016 and 16.02.2016, CFSL clearly opined that handwritings and signatures obtained from the applicant do not tally with the handwriting and signatures stamped and marked as Q-1 to Q-13, A-1 and A-2 – Handwritings and signatures on admission certificate, declaration format. Respondents issued Memo dated 27.08.2015, hence, the principles of natural justice had been duly complied with.

5. We have heard Shri Ravinder Sharma with Shri Ashish , Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

THE ISSUE

6. The question that requires our consideration is “as to whether was it justified on the materials av