* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7623/2019 VIJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Mr. Pranjal Vyas, Mr. Aayush Tripathi and Mr. Dhruv Sikka, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Prasad, OS.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 04.11.2024 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated 19 February 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, [$~11] in O.A. 4270/2018. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the order in its entirety :

“MANo.4834/2018 MAis allowedforthe reasons statedintheMisc.Application.

We have heard Mr. Rahul Sinha, counsel for applicant and Mr. Shailendra Tiwary, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings andall thedocuments producedbyboththeparties.

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

1“theTribunal”,hereinafter

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)7623/2019 Page1of

“(a) Quash and set aside the result dt. 02.12.2015 passed byRespondents rejecting thecandidatureoftheApplicant;

(b) remove the name of Applicant from the list of rejected candidates and declare the Applicant herein eligible for appointment in the Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt./ RRC/2013 as per his merit with all consequential benefits;

(c) Pass any such other and further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’bleCourt maydeem fit andproper.”

3. The crucial question arising in this case is whether the rejection of the appointment of the applicant on the ground of mismatch in the handwriting/signature of the applicant available on the Application Form, ORM Sheet, D.V. papers etc. is sustainable at thefinal stageoftherecruitment process.

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

5. The counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that no opportunity was given to the applicant to explain the mismatch in the handwriting/signature, as such there is violation of principle of natural justice and on that ground he has prayed for the above statedrelief.

6. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the admissionofthecandidateat everystageoftherecruitment process is purely provisional, subject to satisfying the prescribed condition and they have also stated that one of the conditions is that the candidate should fill up the application form in his/her own handwriting as per the conditions of the recruitment, and that during the examination of the applicant’s case it was decided by the respondents (Northern Railway) to get the expert advice from the Forensic Document Expert duly nominated by the Ministry of Railways for the purposes of reference to matching the handwriting/Signature on the relevant papers. The said Documents Expert after examining the relevant documents with reference to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)7623/2019 Page2of applicant do not match and accordingly his case was rejected by the competent authority. They have also submitted that as the competent authority after getting the Expert Advice have taken a conscious decision to reject the case of the applicant for appointment, the OA of the applicant should be dismissed. He has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. v Ramjee,