Allahabad High Court
Vikram vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 8 January, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57713 of 2015 Petitioner :- Vikram Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- Sri Vivek Singh,Rajnish Kumar Rai,S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajneesh Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.6.2015 passed by third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner as selected on the post of Constable-General Duty (GD) in Railway Protection Force (RPF) and to appoint the petitioner on the said post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.2.2011 and amendment made therein and to provide all the consequential benefits.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.782 of 2016 (Abhishek Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.) and as such it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The operative portion of the order dated 23.12.2016 is quoted as under:-
"..............We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition for the reason that disputed question of fact pertaining to signature and thumb impression cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
We find no ground which may warrant us taking a view different from what stands recorded by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is devoid of merit and is consequently, dismissed."
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 16.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.2813 of 2017 (Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Others), wherein the Court had passed the following order:-
"..............29. Although the report of Government Laboratory and opinion of its experts would be entitled to weight, particularly when no bias or mala fide is alleged, yet, being in the nature of opinion, it cannot conclusively establish impersonation on part of the petitioners. The respondents' action is otherwise not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that action of respondents in cancelling petitioners' provisional selection, and debarring them from appearing in any exam conducted by the Commission for three years, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Orders impugned dated 27.10.2016 and 14.12.2016, accordingly, stands quashed.
30. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to verify identity of petitioners upon material and evidence admissible in law by following the principles of natural justice. The required exercise be undertaken preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, as petitioners have already lost sufficient time. Based upon such consideration, the respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter relating to grant of appointment to the petitioners.
31. Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of."
Against the aforesaid order, the department had preferred Special Appeal No.1045 of 2018, (Union Of India & Ors. v. Ran Vijay Singh & Ors.), which was dismissed on 8.5.2019 with following observations:-
"....................At this juncture, we would also like to state that it is not the case of the appellant-respondents that the process of selection suffers from mass-irregularity, but of unfair practices adopted by certain individuals.
Looking to this background also, we are of considered opinion that while cancelling examination of the respondent-petitioners and further debarring him for three consecutive examinations the appellant should have supplied a copy of the opinion given by the handwriting expert. Non-supply of that is in violation of principles of natural justice.
In view of whatever stated above and also in light of the discussion made by learned Single Bench while accepting the petitions for writ, we do not find any merit in the appeal, hence the same is dismissed."
It is contended that accordingly the respondents have initiated the process of compliance of the aforesaid orders dated 16.4.2018 and 8.5.2019 in similar matters. Accordingly, a fresh shown cause notice along with copy of opinion given by the Finger Print Bureau on Thumb impression was also forwarded to the petitioners in other writ petitions for submission of reply.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present matter admittedly nothing has been brought on record to substantiate whether the respondents have taken any criminal stand or thumb impression was mismatched in the matter and as such the judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondents would not be attracted in the present matter and the petitioner is liable to be extended the indulgence as has been given in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that during the viva-voce and documents verification signature/hand writing of the petitioner marked as Q1 (OMR/Answer sheet) did not match with the document marked as S1. As such the petitioner's signature was rightly rejected and he was not selected for the post he had applied for and as such the impugned order cannot be quashed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondents would not be attracted in the present matter and the present matter is liable to be decided in the light of the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (Supra).The writ petition stands allowed. The department would proceed to issue fresh shown cause notice along with the copy of the opinion given by the expert. The petitioner will respond to the said show cause notice. The entire exercise must be completed within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The order impugned shall abide by the final outcome of the aforesaid proceeding.
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 SP/