* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10205/2019 DINESH KUMAR MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Mr. Aakash Pathak and Ms. Pinky Pawar, Advocates 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 29 January 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, [$~10] in O.A. 112/2016. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the order in its entirety:

“1. We have heard Ms. Neelima Rathore for Mr. U. Srivastava, counsel for applicant and Mr. Prabodh Kumar Singh for Mr. Kripa ShankarPrasad, counsel forrespondents, perused thepleadings and all thedocuments producedbyboththeparties.

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

"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present OA before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice,andthereafter;

1“theTribunal”,hereinafter

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)10205/2019 Page1of10

(b) To quash and setting aside the impugned order dt. Nil 2015 (Annexure A/1) by which the case of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents after declaring the same is a non-speaking, unreasoned, bald and cryptic order which is illegal, biased, perverse, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, violative of articles 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of Indiaagainst themandatoryprovisions oflaw, badinlaw andnot sustainableinthe eyes oflaw andthereafter;

(c) Directing the respondents to appoint the applicants against the vacancies notified under the Employment Notification No. 220E/Open Mkt./RRC/2013 dt. 30.12.13, with all other consequential benefits from the date from which the batch mates of the applicants have been appointedetc.

(d) Allowing the OA of the applicant with all other consequential benefits andcosts.

(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to theapplicant."

3. The crucial question arising in this case is whether the rejection of the appointment of the applicant on the mismatch in the handwriting/signature of the applicant available on the Application Form, ORM Sheet, D.V. papers etc. is sustainable at thefinal stageofthe recruitment 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 30.12.13 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 she has prayed for the above statedrelief.

6. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the admission of the candidate at every stage of the recruitment Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C)10205/2019 Page2of10 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 hand- writing/Signature on the r