Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yattin Dutt Kaushik vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 5 December, 2025
1
OA No. 1146/2022
Item No.72/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1146/2022
Reserved on : 30.10.2025
Pronounced on : 05.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Yattin Dutt Kaushik (Age 27 Yrs)
S/o Shri Puneet Kaushik
R/o House No. 149, Gali No.5
Rajiv Colony, Narela
West Delhi-110040
(Roll No. 2201077485,
Selected candidate to the post of Court Clerk
CHSL 10+2 Examination 2016)
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Sharma with Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj and
Mr. Abhishek Sharma)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. The Under Secretary, ND-II
Staff Selection Commission (NR)
(Department of Personnel and Training)
Block No.12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Gauraan)
Digitally signed by
JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.08
17:38:40+05'30'
2
OA No. 1146/2022
Item No.72/C-4
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought for the following relief(s):-
"I) Quash and set aside the Impugned order dated 09.04.2019 placed as Annexure A-1, vide which the candidature of the applicant has been illegally cancelled and he has been debarred from taking any examination of the commission for a period of three years from 15.01.2017.
II) Direct respondents to appoint the Applicant forthwith to the post of Court Clerk for which the applicant was selected with all consequential benefits;
III) Pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
2.1 The applicant is a candidate to the post of Court Clerk towards Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL) - Examination 2016 held by the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter called as "Commission").
2.2 The selection process consisted of three Tiers, i.e. a Computer Based Written Exam (Tier-I), the Descriptive Paper (Tier-II) and Typing Test/ Skill Test (Tier-III) and the applicant participated in the Examinations. While the applicant declared qualified in the final result, he was called for document verification which was done on Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 3 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 13.12.2017 and had the photograph of the applicant along with signatures and thumb impression.
2.3 The applicant was provisionally selected for the post of Court Clerk in the result declared by the Commission. Thereafter, he received a letter dated 25.06.2018 informing that his nomination has been kept pending due to "Mismatch of Handwriting and/or Signature taken on various documents during different stages of examination" and directed to visit the office of the Commission within 7 days with all the documents for re-verification. 2.4 Further, before sending the dossier of the selected candidates to the User Department, the Commission undertook thorough scrutiny and verification of handwriting, signatures etc. taken during different stages of the Examination, the alleged samples of the handwriting of the applicant were requisitioned by the Commission and later same were sent to the CFSL Chandigarh for verifying the genuineness of handwriting/signatures of the applicant.
2.5 To his utter shock, the appointment/candidature of the applicant was cancelled vide order dated 09.04.2019 and he was debarred for a period of three years from the date of written exam, i.e. 15.01.2017, from appearing in future examinations. This limb of punishment awarded has already become infructuous after expiry of three years.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 4 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant explained that upon entering the examination centre, the applicant was required to sign in, after which officials verified the admit card and matched the photograph with the individual. The applicant's thumb impressions were also taken and authenticated. At the start of the examination, the applicant filled in all requisite details on the answer sheet, and officials completed an attendance check by obtaining his signature on their records. During the examination, a separate vigilance team visited each candidate to physically verify their identity once again and collected another set of signatures. Additionally, in both Tier-I and Tier-II examinations, the invigilator counter verified the details entered on the answer sheet's cover page and confirmed the verification with their name and signature. 2.7 The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out towards content of Para 4 of the impugned Annexure A-1 (Page 23 of the Paper Book) which reads as under:
"..... the case of Sh. Yattin Dutt Kaushik, being similar in nature, was also sent to Forensic Expert for verification of his Candidature."
and also para 5 of the ibid impugned order, which reads as under:
"Whereas report of the forensic expert has been returned and reliable evidence has emerged during such verification that applicant named Sh. Yattin Dutt Kaushik had resorted to mal- practice/unfair means in the Written Examination of Tier-II."
and submitted that such findings are wholly baseless and there is no evidence, much less cogent in nature.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 5 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 2.8 He argued that the impugned Order dated 09.04.2019 is solely based on a CFSL Handwriting report which constitutes an extremely weak nature of Handwriting Comparison evidence and the same can't, in any event, be treated as 'Conclusive' as held in Union of India & Ors. vs Jag Mohan, 2024 SCC OnLine Delhi 9099, and in catena of other cases, including S.P.S. Rathore vs CBI & Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 817, as well as in Padam Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 35, the proposition of law that emerges is that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. As in the present case it is clear that uncorroborated evidence of a Handwriting Expert has been made the basis and relied upon by the Commission. As a consequence thereof, the applicant has been meted out with the impugned hazardous punishment by cancelling his candidature for appointment being selected.
2.9 He further argued that on the top of all, post facto, to the receiving of so-called report of expert, the utter violation of basic principles of natural justice including audi altrum partem in as much as no Show Cause Notice was issued to applicant and no hearing much less the adequate hearing was accorded to the applicant before condemning him.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 6 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 2.10 He also submitted that the applicant relies on and is squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (DB) in W.P. (C) 12544/2023 titled as Gourav vs Union of India & Ors., where under even the factual matrix of both the cases including present case in hand, are same and identical.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, averred that before sending the dossiers of the selected candidates to the User Department, the Commission undertakes thorough scrutiny and verification of handwriting, signatures etc. taken during different stages of examination with a view to protect integrity and fairness in recruitment and to eliminate procurement of impersonation and malpractices by unscrupulous elements. Since it was found that there was mismatch in handwriting and signatures of the applicant, his result was withheld along with such other candidates and the matter was referred to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh for verification on 09.08.2018. The CFSL, Chandigarh vide letter dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure R-1) furnished its forensic report, stating as under:
"1. The person who wrote the writings and signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked S1 to S3, S3/1, S3/2 and S4 to S14 did not write the writings and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4.
2. The writings and signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked A5 to A13, S1 to S3, S3/1, S3/2 and S4 to S14 have been written by one and the same person." Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 7 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 Questioned writings and signatures stamped and marked as A1 to A4 were the writings and signatures, written by the Applicant on the admit card of Tier-II of the Examination. Questioned writings and signatures marked as A5 to A8 were the writings and signatures on admit card of Computer skill test. Questioned writings and signatures marked as A9 to A12 were writings and signatures on admit card of Tier-I of the examination. Questioned signature marked as A13 was the signature on the declaration form. Standard writings and signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S14 were the samples of the writings and signatures of the Applicant collected by the Commission in the Commission only.
3.1 From the forensic report of CFSL, it is transpired that the person who appeared in Tier-I and computer skill test of the examination and the one who appeared before the Commission for furnishing samples of his hand writings and signatures, are one and the same person. Whereas the person who appeared in Tier-II of the examination and the one who appeared before the Commission for furnishing samples of his hand writings and signatures, are two different persons.
3.2 As per the findings of CFSL Chandigarh, it has been confirmed that it is a case of impersonation. Accordingly, in terms of Para 15(v) of the Notice, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled and he Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 8 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 was debarred for a period of 3 years vide order dated 09.04.2019. Para 15(v) of the Notice is reproduced below for reference:-
"15. Action against candidates found guilty of misconduct:
Candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars that are false or suppress any material information while filling in the application form. Candidates are also warned that they should neither attempt to alter or otherwise tamper with any entry in a document or the attested certified copy submitted by them nor submit a tampered/fabricated document.
Without prejudice to criminal action/debarment from Commission's examination wherever necessary, candidature will be summarily cancelled at any stage of the recruitment in respect of candidates found to have indulged in any of the following:-
(v) Impersonate/Procuring impersonation by any person."
3.3 She also submitted that it is a trite law that decisions of expert bodies should not ordinarily be modified. In another similar matter, the candidature of candidate was also cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in the Commission's Examination on the basis of opinion of GEQD/CFSL. The candidate approached Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal by filing OA No.429/2003. The Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, after going through the factual position of the case, dismissed the O.A. on merit vide Order dated 12.02.2004 and clearly stated on the opinion of GEQD/CFSL that "We have no reason to disbelieve the expert opinion". The decision of CAT, Allahabad Bench was further upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide Order dated 29.03.2006.
3.4 She also relied upon the following decisions passed in similar matters:
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 9 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4
(i) Order dated 19.05.2010 passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1147/2001; wherein it was held as under:
"We are satisfied that the applicant was rightly suspected to have procured impersonation in the Written Examination and this fact was subsequently confirmed by GEQD, Shimla. We found no illegality in the impugned Order. The Original Application, is accordingly, dismissed"
(ii) Order dated 25.02.2019 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1380/2016 titles as Sombir vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr., which was dismissed by this Tribunal holding as under:
"6. In view of the expert opinion given in this case by CFSL stating that the signatures and some of the handwritings do not tally as also in view of the judgment and orders referred to above by counsel for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 07.03.2016 passed by the respondents is neither arbitrary nor whimsical and cannot be interfered with."
3.5 She also referred to para 19 of the Notice of Examination, which reads thus:
"19. Commission's Decision Final The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of the applications, penalty for false information, mode of selection, conduct of examination(s), allotment of examination centres, selection and allotment of posts/organizations to selected candidates will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry/correspondence will be entertained in this regard.
Success in the examination confers no right of appointment unless government ore satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respects of appointment to the service/post."
3.6 She stressed that the action of the Commission, debarring the applicant from selection process is strictly in conformity with the extant rules which had been made explicit to all the candidates. Thus, Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 10 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4 there is no scope for extending any concession or leniency to a candidate who has resorted to impersonation. 3.7 In support of her arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents averred that as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is now a settled law that procedure is a support system towards justice and it cannot become a hindrance in justice delivery. In other words, if the procedure would have been followed and still the final result would have been the same, Courts may not set aside the proceeding merely so that the same result can be brought about after following the procedure because that would only cause unnecessary delay in justice.
3.8 As regards reliance placed by the applicant on the Judgment in WP(C) No. 12544/2023 in the case of Gourav vs Union of India & Ors., she averred that the case of Gourav was about signature mismatch. However, the instant matter of the applicant pertains to handwriting mismatch in written examination. Nonetheless, the Union of India has already filed SLP (C) Diary No. 50237/2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the final order and judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Gourav (supra), in which notice has been issued and the operation of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been stayed vide Order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure WS-1 to written synopsis).
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 11 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings/judgments/written synopsis placed on record.
5. On a careful consideration of the pleadings on record and submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties, it becomes evident that the respondents have followed the prescribed procedure and have uniformly applied the same standards of scrutiny to all candidates, including the applicant, particularly in matters involving suspected impersonation. The record shows that the respondents referred the handwriting and signatures collected at various stages of the examination to CFSL for expert analysis, and the forensic report unequivocally indicated a mismatch between the writings/signatures pertaining to Tier-II and the standard samples furnished by the applicant, thereby substantiating the suspicion of impersonation. This expert opinion, being obtained from a specialized and competent authority, i.e. CFSL, cannot be lightly disregarded, especially when similar reports have been consistently relied upon and upheld in several decisions of coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, as cited by the respondents. We find no reason to take a different view, as in the absence of any material to demonstrate mala fides, procedural irregularity, or perversity in the decision-making process, the impugned order dated 09.04.2019 cannot be said to suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.08 17:38:40+05'30' 12 OA No. 1146/2022 Item No.72/C-4
6. Moreover, the Judgment in WP(C) No. 12544/2023 in the case of Gourav (supra) being distinguishable on facts as well as stayed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 50237/2025 vide Order dated 15.10.2025, will provide no help to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents, which appears to be in consonance with the rules governing the examination process and the settled legal position on the evidentiary value of expert reports in recruitment related disputes.
8. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/
Digitally signed by
JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.08
17:38:40+05'30'