Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India vs Lokesh Singh Gujar S/O Shri Ram Singh ... on 21 August, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11473/2019
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railway,
New Delhi.
2. The Personnel Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell Northern
Railway, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi
3. The Assistant Personnel Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell,
Northern Railway, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi
----Non-Applicants-Petitioners
Versus
Lokesh Singh Gujar S/o Shri Ram Singh Gurjar, Aged About 25
Years, By Caste Gurjar, Resident Of Ganesh Nagar, Agra Road
Dausa (Raj.)-303303
----Applicant-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 21/08/2019 This writ petition seeks to challenge the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.12.2018 allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent and the order dated 22.2.2019 dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioners.
The respondent approached the Tribunal inter alia with the prayer that the petitioners herein be directed to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Group-D, allow him for medical examination and thereafter give him appointment if found suitable.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:05:05 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-11473/2019] Facts of the case are that petitioners issued employment notification dated 30.8.2012 inviting applications for appointment on Group-D posts. The respondent applied in response thereto. The respondent appeared in the written examination and successfully qualified the same. He was provisionally selected for appointment. However, during the course of documents verification, the petitioners observed that his handwriting and signatures on the application form and the OMR sheet do not match. Petitioners, therefore, got the expert advice on such documents from an Ex-Government Examiner. The document expert advised that writing and the signature of the respondent on the application form and OMR sheet do not match. Accordingly, his candidature was rejected.
When the matter was taken up by Tribunal on 12.09.2017, it was noticed that the respondent has also put his thumb impressions both on the application form as also on the OMR sheet. The Tribunal observed that since the Forensic Documents Consultant had not recorded his findings with regard to match/mismatch of the thumb impressions of the respondent, therefore, it was appropriate to get the thumb impressions of the respondent compared/verified from a Forensic Expert. The Tribunal therefore directed the petitioners-railways themselves to produce the report of Forensic Expert.
We deem it appropriate to reproduce the order passed by the Tribunal on 12.9.2017, which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties for some time.
Shri M.K. Meena, learned counsel for the respondents produced before us the report of (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:05:05 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-11473/2019] Forensic Expert. We have noticed the finding of the Forensic Documents Consultant as under:-
"Roll No: 50172012
Name: Sh. Lokesh Singh Gurjar
Control No. 2141581
Case serial No: MLS/RRC/D/496/14
The writings and signatures in the red enclosed portions marked A-1 (Application), A-2 (OMR), A- 3 (Document Verification) & A-4 (Option Form) match.
2. The writings in the red enclosed portion marked A-1/1 (Application) do not match with the writings and signatures in the red enclosed portions marked A-1 (Application), A-2 (OMR), A- 3 (Document Verification) & A-4 (Option Form). Dated 04.10.2014 Sd/ (M.L.Sharma) Forensic Documents Consultant & Ex. Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, MHA, Govt. of India, Dhar View, Tuti Kandi, SHIMLA-171004 (HP) Te: 0177-2655529, M: 94180-20214 We further noticed that the applicant has put his thumb impressions both on the Application Form and OMR sheet. The Forensic Documents Consultant has not recorded his findings with regard to matching/ mis-matching of these thumb impressions with each other. It is pertinent to mention that the most authentic basis for Biometric system of Identification as followed by Unique Identification Authority of India for issuing Aadhar Cards is thumb impression. Hence, we feel that it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to get the thumb impressions of the applicant as on the Application Form and OMR sheet verified by a Forensic Expert as to their match/mis-match with each other. We feel that such verification would settle the matter decisively. Ordered accordingly.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:05:05 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-11473/2019] The respondents are directed to produce the report of Forensic Expert on this issue within three months.
List on 20.12.2017."
It is not in dispute that the petitioners-railways forwarded the newly obtained thumb impression of the respondent to the Ex. Government Examiner. Copy of which has been placed on record before the Tribunal and also before this Court. The Forensic Expert referred to in the communication sent by Shri P.C. Kaushik, C.F.P.E., Northern Railways, Headquarters at Baroda House, New Delhi to the Chairman, R.R.C., Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi dated 23.9.2018 records that comparison of the admitted thumb impression of the respondent Lokesh Singh Gurjar S/o Ram Singh Gurjar with those on his application form and the OMR sheet has revealed that all the thumb impressions belong to the same person. In other words, the expert did not find any mismatch in the thumb impressions. The Tribunal in its order order dated 12.9.2017 rightly observed that since the Forensic Document Consultant did not record any finding with regard to match/mismatch of the thumb impressions obtained on the application form and the OMR sheet, which was the most authentic basis for Biometric System of Identification as followed by Unique Identification Authority of India for issuing Aadhar Cards, obtaining the report of expert on this aspect would settle the matter finally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to site the judgement of the Supreme Court in UOI & Anr. vs. Sarwan Ram & Anr. SLP (C) No.706/2014 dated 8.10.2014, wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with a case in which the condition in the (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:05:05 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-11473/2019] advertisement to fill up posts of Group D of Ex-servicemen quota requiring to paste photograph in military uniform and rejection of the application of non-fulfillment of such condition, was held to be right. That judgement in our opinion is distinguishable on facts and does not in any manner afford any help to the petitioners.
In our opinion, biometric system of identification, which is followed by even Unique Identification Authority of India, for issuing Aadhar Cards, is indeed the most authentic method of cross verifying the identity of the applicant, which has fully matched with admitted thumb impression of the applicant with his thumb impressions on the original application form and also with his thumb impressions obtained on the OMR sheet at the time of examination.
We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgements of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J RAVI SHARMA /31 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:05:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)