$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23.04.2024 + W.P.(C) 10076/2016 SACHIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Davender Kumar, Ms. Seema, Mr. Ved Prakash Garg, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms.

Arani Chaudhary, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, [Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal] in O.A. No. 2915/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the petitioner.

2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we may note the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record.

3. Upon an advertisement being issued by the respondents on 30.08.2012 for recruitment against Group-D post in the Pay Band-I of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/-, the petitioner applied and Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10076/2016 Page 1 of 7

appeared in the competitive examination. In fact, the petitioner was lucky to find his name in the final merit list published on 21.04.2014. Even though he was issued a posting order thereafter, however, before he could join the said posting, the respondents passed an order dated 23.04.2015, cancelling his candidature. This, the petitioner learnt, was on the account of purported mismatch of his handwriting and signatures on the Application Form vis-a-

vis the OMR Sheet.

4. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid O.A., which, as noted herein above, has been rejected by the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the decision of the respondents was based on the report of an Expert, who had opined that there was a mismatch in handwriting and signature of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. We may note at this stage itself that during the course of the present proceedings, it was pointed out by the parties that the opinion of the respondents regarding the mismatch in the petitioners handwriting and the signatures on the Application Form and the OMR Sheet was not based on any Expert’s opinion but, on the basis of apparent difference in the handwriting and the signature of the petitioner. It was under these circumstances that this Court, vide order dated 25.01.2017, had directed the respondents to send the petitioner’s Application Form alongwith the OMR sheet to the FSL. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the FSL has submitted a Report dated 29.12.2017 based on a comparison inter se the petitioner’s handwriting in the documents i.e. Application Form and OMR Sheet.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the FSL Report Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10076/2016 Page 2 of 7 submits that majority of the signatures and handwriting of the petitioner in the two documents are matching, thus, the decision of the respondents of cancelling the candidature of the petitioner be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that the writ petition as also the O.A. be allowed and the respondents be directed to forthwith appoint the petitioner to a Group-D post in the Pay Band-I of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/- alongwith all consequential benefits.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submits that when the FSL report itself shows that there was some discrepancy qua two of the comparisons made, this in itself is sufficient to discredit the candidature of the petitioner. Thus she prays that the present petition be dismissed.

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, and based on what is before us, as visible to the