Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Khursheed Ansari vs General Manager, N E Rly on 15 July, 2025
Reserved on 11.07.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 15th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1143 of 2016
Khurshed Ansari S/o Mehadi Hasan Resident of Village Narsar,
Post Dumarbhar, District - Kushi Nagar.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Recruitment), N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Karmik Adhikari (Recruitment) N.E. Railway Gorakhpur.
4. Adhyaksh Railway (Recruitment) Cell N.E. Railway Gorakhpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"In view of the facts and the grounds mentioned above, applicant prays for quashing the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 by which the candidature of the applicant has been rejected and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant by way of joining for the post group D in N.E. Railway Gorakhpur."
RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page
3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur by way of which applicant's representation dated 29.11.2014 regarding appointment on Class IV post group D was rejected. Applicant has alleged that respondents have quoted false grounds to reject his candidature for the advertisement No NER/RRC/D/2007/1 and also have illegally debarred him from participating in future examinations. Respondents on the other hand have contended that the applicant has erased the answer of question no 55 contained in the OMR Sheet and therefore as per the prescribed guidelines his candidature was cancelled. Furthermore, respondents have also contended that there was found mismatch in signature of the applicant in several documents. By way of the instant Original Application, the applicant has sought quashing of the aforesaid impugned order by way of a direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on a group D post in accordance with his candidature in the aforesaid advertisement.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an advertisement was issued for Group D post in the year 2011. The applicant had applied for the post, admit card was issued, physical examination was conducted between 28.02.2011 to 10.06.2011 wherein he appeared and was declared successful. Thereafter, written examination was held on 16.10.2011 and in that also the applicant was declared successful. The applicant appeared for verification with medical formalities on 14.12.2011 before the authority concerned. Medical certificate was also issued and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the applicant by the authority concerned mentioning therein that there is mismatch of the signature of the applicant. Explanation was sought that why not the applicant's candidature for the aforesaid post be cancelled and he be debarred from future RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page examinations of the organization. Applicant submitted his reply and thereafter vide the impugned order, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled and the applicant was debarred from future examinations of the organization. It is also argued that in the show cause notie issued earlier by the respondents, nothing was mentioned regarding the manipulation in the OMR sheet in respect of question no 55 whereas in the impugned order, one more ground regarding erasing of the answer to the question no 55 was taken to cancel the candidature of the applicant besides the mismatch of signature. No opportunity to explain the first ground was given to the applicant. It was also argued that if the applicant has erased the answer of one question no 55 in the OMR sheet, the OMR sheet would not have been evaluated on the computer. The applicant's OMR sheet was evaluated and he was shown successful and thus this fact shows that erasure in the OMR sheet was made in the office of the respondents because OMR sheet was in the custody of the respondents themselves. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant also argued that if any erasure has been made in the OMR sheet, this fact would have come in the fitst show cause notice itself and thus argued that ground taken in the impugned order is manufactured by the respondents to cancel the candidature of the applicant. Referring to the question regarding the mismatch of the signature, it was further argued that in the similar circumstances, in another advertisement, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in its judgment dated 16.05.2023 passed in Writ A No 21096 of 2018 titled Vijay Pal and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors has set aside the order vide which candidature of the similarly situated person was cancelled by the respondents therein and the Court had also observed that opinion of hand writing experts is not a conclusive proof. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that order and judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Vijay Pal (supra) case was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 03.11.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 41861 of 2023 titled Union of India and Ors Vs Vijay Pal And Ors. RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page Thus, argued that similar relief be also allowed to the applicant herein. It was further argued that if no post is available to adjust the applicant in the department, respondents be directed to create a supernumerary post till the regular vacancy is made available and thus argued to allow the OA.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the OMR sheet, specific condition has been made that in case any erasure is used, the OMR sheet will be deemed invalid. On submission of reply to the show cause notice, the competent authority was analysis the entire matter then this fact also come into light that applicant has erased the answer of question no 55 of the OMR sheet. Thus, this ground as well as the ground of mismatch of signature both were sufficient to cancel the candidature of the applicant and to debar him from future examinations of the department. There is no illegality, infirmity and perversity in the impugned order. It is also argued that Vijay Pal (supra) case is relating to a different advertisement. The applicant of the present OA is related to the different advertisement. It is also argued that in Vijay Pal (supra) case, there was a specific direction to keep posts vacant in the present matter. No such order has ever been passed in the instant case of the applicant. It is also argued that respondents cannot be directed to create a supernumerary post. Thus, argued to dismiss the OA being devoid of merits.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the averments as made in the Original Application.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the records.
9. In this matter as is evident from the records, the applicant applied for a Group D post advertisement vide advertisement No. NER/RRC/D/2007/1. After scrutiny, he was found eligible. Physical examination as well as written examination were also held and the applicant was found successful. In medical test also, he was found fit. At the time of the document verification, the respondents found that RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page there is mismatch of signature of the applicant in the documents and due to this reason, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant and to which reply was also made by the applicant. Lastly, considering the reply, vide the impugned order, the respondents, cancelled the candidature of the applicant on two grounds, firstly, on the ground that the applicant has erased the answer of question no. 55 in the OMR sheet and secondly on the ground of mismatch of signature of the applicant in several documents.
10. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vijay Pal (supra) has held that:
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral citation No. 2023; AHC 106025-DB AFR Reserved Case No. Writ A No. 21096 of 2018 Petitioner; Vijay Pal and 3 others Respondents: Union of India and 3 others Counsel for the petitioner : Shyamal Narain, Ravi Prakash Bhatt.
Counsel for respondents: Vivek Kumar Rai, Manish Pandey, Rajnish Kumar Rai Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Suneet Kumar. J.
1. Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, assisted by Shri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Petitioner/original applicants, herein, are challenging the judgment and order dated 1 May 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short 'Tribunal'), whereby, their candidature for appointment on Group-D post has been rejected.
3. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad (for short 'RRC'), invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to Group-D posts, i.e., Khalasi, Helper, Trackman, Peon, Parcel Porter, Safaiwala, etc. under North Central Railway, vide advertisement No. 01/2013, dated 27 July, 2013.
4. Petitioners appeared for the written test and were declared successful. The select list was published on the official website of R.R.C. on 15 December 2015. Thereafter, petitioners appeared for the Physical Examination Test (for short 'P.E.T'.), held between 10 March 2015 to 14 March 2015, finally, 2609 candidates, including the petitioners came to be declared successful in the RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page P.E.T. Thereafter, all the candidates, including, petitioners were called for verification of the documents and medical examination. The select list published on the website on 15 December 2015, was accompanied by a note running in fourteen paragraphs. The paragraph relevant for the purposes of this case is extracted:
"During various stages of scrutiny and Document Verification 339 candidates found indulged in impersonation. It is roved following extant procedure that these candidates did not appeared inn the written examination but some one else appeared in place of these candidates or handwriting/thumb impression of these candidates did not match in various documents. Hence apart from cancellation of candidature of the 339 candidates they are being debarred from all Railways examination through out Indian Railways as well as criminal case may also be registered against them on case to case basis."
5. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected with the remarks 'handwriting/thumb impression mismatch'.
6. Aggrieved, petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing original application, being O.A. No. 1789 of 2015, Vijay Pal and others versus Union of India and others, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 1 May 2018.
7. During pendency of the original application, an interim order dated 31 December 2015, was granted by the Tribunal directing the respondents to keep 23 Group-D posts vacant. The operative portion of the order is extracted:
"Having heard learned counsel for both sides, it appears that the grounds for rejection are stigmatic and therefore some opportunity ought to have been given to the applicants before rejecting their candidature by the respondents. Therefore, prima facie, a case for interim protection is made out. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep 23 posts vacant till the next date. If the facts are otherwise, the respondents are at liberty to file stay vacation application."
8. During pendency of the original application, petitioners came to be issued memorandum dated 23 January 2016, stating therein, that though the candidature of the petitioners was already cancelled, however, petitioners were called upon by the respondents to show cause as to why they may not be debarred from all future R.R.C./R.R.B. examinations, further, why criminal case may not be instituted against them for indulging in malpractice to procure Government job by fraud and misrepresentation.
9. The notice alleged that the petitioners had resorted to impersonation, further, it was alleged that there was mismatch in the handwriting, and/or, thumb impression of the candidates. In other words, allegation against the petitioners was that they have resorted, by securing the services of someone else, in the written test on their behalf. The allegation levelled in the two memorandums of the same date is extracted:
"I. As confirmed by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hand writing on the Application Form and that on answer sheet (OMR)/verification sheets are of different person (s). It has been established that the candidate did not appear himself in the written examination or PET examination and rather somebody else appeared in the same on his behalf, which is a case of impersonation, a malpractice and an offence.
II. As you are aware bio-metrics attendance were obtained during each phase of examination. It is to bring into your notice that your thumb impression during document verification did not match with written and PET examination. It means someone else had appeared in written and PET examination impersonating your candidature."
10. Petitioners filed their objections to the show cause notice/memorandum denying the allegations of impersonation or mismatch in handwriting, and/or, RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page thumb impression. The respondent-authority vide order dated 31 March 2016, rejected the objection stating that the reply submitted by the petitioners were not found satisfactory. Consequently, petitioners were debarred from taking future R.R.B./R.R.C. examinations for life.
11. Aggrieved, petitioners through an amendment application challenged the memorandum dated 22 January 2016 and the debarment order dated 31 March 2016.
12. The learned Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings and hearing the counsels for the respective parties, by the impugned order, partly allowed the original application of the petitioners. The impugned orders to the extent debarring the petitioners from future R.R.B/R.R.C. examinations for life was set aside. The decision of the respondents, however, cancelling the candidature of the petitioners was not interfered with.
13. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus:
"24. In the circumstances, following the decision taken in the case of Santosh Kumar Tiwari (supra) to this case, we also come to the conclusion that from the facts and circumstances of the case based on the materials on record and as discussed in para 22, the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants, since the allegation comprised of only mismatch of thumb impression or handwriting, without any mismatch of the signature of the applicants. In case of impersonation the mismatch in signature would have been detected also. The mismatch of signature is not reported or detected for any of the applicants in this case. However, there is violation of the instructions of the examination as per the advertisement No. 1/2023, for which there is mismatch of handwriting or mismatch of thumb impression for the applicants and these mismatches have not been explained satisfactorily as the explanation in one applicant's explanation/reply at Annexure A-10 of the OA reveals. In fact, there are such violations as mentioned in the Suppl. Affidavit filed by the applicants. Further, no specific reason has been indicated in the show cause notice or impugned order in support of the allegation of impersonation against any of the applicants. Hence, taking into accounts the facts of the case, we consider the cancellation of the candidature of the applicants for the advertisement No. 1/2013 to be just and proper. But the decision of the respondents to debar some of the applicants for all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is not at all justified based on the materials on record. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2016, debarring the applicants from all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is set aside and quashed. However, we uphold the decision/orders of the respondent No. 2 to cancel the candidature of the applicants for the examination pertaining to the advertisement No. 1/2013. Respondent No. 2 is directed to modify the penal action against the applicants accordingly. The interim orders in the case to keep 23 posts vacant in OA No. 1789/2015 and one post vacant in OA No. 73/2016 are vacated and if some of the applicants have appeared in subsequent examinations provisionally by virtue of the interim orders, their candidature shall be considered by the respondent No. 2 as per the rules applicable for the said examination in view of the quashing of the punishment of debarment from all examinations of RRCs/RRBs as per this order.
25. For the OA No. 73/2016, the allegation against the applicant is for mismatch of handwriting as verified by the GEQD like the case of the applicant No. 1 in the OA No. 1789/2015. The reply furnished to the show cause notice and enclosed at Annexure SA-2 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed b the applicant, does not give any convincing explanation for mismatch of handwriting. Hence, the finding as at para 24 will also be applicable for the OA No. 73/2016.
26. Before we part with the case, we notice that there appears to be no Rule or Regulation laying down the procedure to be followed by the RRC/RRB, in situations where there are discrepancies for a candidate like mismatch of handwriting or thumb impression or signature etc. or allegation of impersonation in the examination, as no such Rule/Regulation has been produced before us in this case. The respondents may consider to put in place RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page an appropriate Rule/Regulation to deal with such situations in a just and fair manner as per the provision of law."
14. The coordinate Bench of this Court, on filing of the writ petition by the petitioners, passed an interim order dated 1 October 2018, staying the impugned order of the Tribunal until further orders and directed the respondents to keep 23 posts vacant and that would abide by the out come of the writ petition. The operative portion of the interim order is extracted:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, until further orders, the impugned order date 01.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1789/2015 shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to keep 23 posts vacant."
15. Learned counsel for the respondents, on specific query, admits that the respondent-Railways have not filed writ petition challenging the order of the learned Tribunal, insofar as, the impugned order recorded a categorical finding with regard to impersonation that '... the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants, since the allegation comprised of only mismatch of thumb impression or handwriting without any mismatch of the signature of the applicants. In case of impersonation, the mismatch in signature would have been detected also. The mismatch of signature is not reported or detected for any of the applicants in this case...'
16. In the aforenoted backdrop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that insofar as the allegation of impersonation levelled against the petitioners was held unworthy of belief by the learned Tribunal, rather, the allegation of impersonation was specifically rejected. The finding to that effect has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents.
17. It is, therefore, urged that after returning a categorical finding with regard to impersonation being unbelievable, Tribunal committed an error in upholding the decision of the respondents to cancel the candidature of the petitioners at the examination. In other words, it is submitted that the petitioners had appeared for the examination and are entitled to appointment. In the circumstances, the question of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression would not arise.
18. It is further submitted that the categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal that '... the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants...' is contradictory for the reason that mismatch of handwriting, or, thumb impression, is possible in the event of impersonation.
19. It is further urged that it can safely be said that all the petitioners stand totally exonerated of the main charge of impersonation which was the substance and basis of the show cause notice/memorandum issued to them. It is further submitted that the candidature of the petitioners came to be cancelled prior to the issue of show cause notice/memorandum, accordingly, there is an element of pre-determination of mind of the respondent-Railways against the petitioners. The memorandum was confined to debarment from all future examinations for resorting to impersonation.
20. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is not being disputed that the petitioners herein were not confronted with the expert opinion or of the opinion of the Government Examiner for Questionable Documents (GEQD) . It is admitted that on the allegations based on the opinion of the expert, memorandum was served upon the petitioners to show cause with regard to their debarment and with not regarding the cancellation of their candidature in the examination. In other words, insofar as, cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners, was final as the memorandum was confined with their future debarment in RRB/RRC examinations. It is further stated RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page that after considering the reply of the petitioners, the candidates came to be debarred. The candidature of the petitioners was cancelled due to the acts of irregularities/omissions noted in the impugned order. It is, however, not denied that material relied upon in non-suiting the petitioners, i.e., the expert opinion was not supplied to the petitioners, nor, filed before this Court or the Tribunal. In other words, the orders of cancellation of candidature came to be passed behind the back of the petitioners while cancelling their candidature, thereafter, upon notice, petitioners were debarred for all future RRB examinations.
21. It is not the case of the respondent-Railways that the show cause notice/memorandum was supported by any material, including, the opinion of the handwriting expert. Opinion of handwriting expert was not supplied in support of the memorandum to justify the allegation of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on the application form or on the subsequent papers pertaining to Written Examination/P.E.T. undertaken by the petitioners. The entire exercise was undertaken by the Railways behind the back of the petitioners.
22. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified on the available materials on record to hold petitioners guilty of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on various documents.
23. In Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others1, this Court observed that handwriting expert opinion is at best an opinion, which is not conclusive proof of mismatch of handwriting or impersonation. Expert opinion has been considered to be of very weak nature, which requires corroboration from other material facts pertaining to the allegation.
24. This Court held as follows:
"Evidence of an expert is only an opinion. Expert evidence is only a piece of evidence and external evidence. It has to be considered along with other pieces of evidence. Which would be the main evidence and with is the corroborative one depends upon the facts of each case. An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court a scientific opinion which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a Judge. This kind of testimony, however, has been considered to be of very weak nature and expert is usually required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions. It is quite often surprising to see with what facility, and to what extent, their views would be made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them."
25. The decision of the respondent is based on the expert opinion alone to establish guilt of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression without affording opportunity or confronting the petitioners with the material/opinion. Had it been so, the petitioners in their defence could also have obtained an opinion of the expert to confront the Railways. The impugned order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners could not have been sustained on the opinion of handwriting expert.
26. In Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. Union of India and others2, this Court in similar facts set aside the cancellation of the candidature and their debarment for three years from appearing in any examination of the Commission on the strength of an expert opinion.
"23. In the facts of the present case, despite allegation made in the notice dated 5.8.2015 about thumb impression, signatures and handwriting having not tallied, the respondents have confined their conclusion to the opinion of the handwriting expert. Such opinion cannot be construed as being conclusive.
24. In the present case not only the petitioners have been denied appointment but they are also debarred from appearing in any examination conducted by the Commission for three years. Such order of Commission is clearly RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page stigmatic in nature. The order under challenge carries civil consequences also. Such order cannot be sustained merely on the strength of handwriting report, nature of which remains that of an opinion, and cannot be construed as conclusive.
25. The report of CFSL based upon handwriting expert's opinion, moreover, has not been furnished to the petitioners. Petitioners consequently had no opportunity to controvert it."
27. The decision rendered in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), was carried intra court appeal in Union of India and others vs. Ran Vijay Singh and others3, Division Bench observed as follows:
"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 the 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."
28. The aforenoted authorities came to be followed by the Division Bench in Bhupendra Singh vs. Union of India and anothers4, the relevant part of the order is extracted:
"In both Ran Vijay Singh and Tulasi Ram Prajapati, the learned Judge found that the candidature of the petitioners could not have been unilaterally annulled without granting them an opportunity to rebut the findings recorded by the expert. These principles are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the order is not stigmatic and there is no violation of Article 311 of the Constitution do not merit consideration since principles of natural justice would clearly apply in all situations where a person is visited with serious civil consequences. Once the name of the petitioner stood included in the select list, his removal from the same on the allegation of impersonation must necessarily have been preceded by the issuance of a notice or at least an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish that the adverse material which was relied upon by the respondents was not liable to be accepted. It is well settled that the opinion of an expert is not conclusive and remains just that, namely, an opinion."
29. The respondents in the given facts of the case at hand were expected to confront the petitioners with the material relied upon against them, particularly, when the petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any further examination conducted by the RRB/RRC and their candidature was cancelled for the examination on mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression.
30. The opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record. The learned Tribunal has discarded the theory of impersonation setup by the respondent-Railways, then in that event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioners becomes unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that petitioners have not appeared in the examination or have not filled the application form in their handwriting.
31. The respondent-Railways, in their counter affidavit, have not denied that at all stages of the examination, i.e., Written Test and P.E.T., thumb impression and signatures of the candidates was taken and the entire process was video-graphed. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that though the petitioners had appeared for the examination, yet at the same time, there was mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression.
32. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners, herein, had not carried the relevant documents, including, identity card to the examination centre or had not participated in the P.E.T./Medical Examination. RITU RAJ SINGH 10 | P a g e
33. In the circumstances, it cannot be said in absence of any other material available with the Railways, that it is a case of mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression. The inference of the Railways is based on an opinion without being supported by any other material, i.e., the petitioners had not appeared at different stages of the selection process.
34. In service jurisprudence, though Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but on the principle of preponderance of probability, based on some material evidence against the petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by the Railways, that there was large scale irregularities in the examination process, only few candidates have been picked-up and their selections cancelled merely on an opinion obtained behind the back of the petitioners without confronting the petitioners with the incriminating material.
35. The respondent's action otherwise is not inconformity with the principles of natural justice, accordingly, the impugned order dated 1 May 2018, being stigmatic cannot be sustained.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on Group-D post forthwith.
37. It is clarified that no other ground or point was pressed by the counsels for the respective parties.
38. No cost.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023".
The judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Vijay Pal (supra) case was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 24965 of 2023 but the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.12.2024.
11. As far as the first ground regarding erasing of the answer of question no 55 of the OMR sheet by the applicant is concerned, certainly nothing in this regard was mentioned in the show cause notice issued in this matter against the applicant. For the first time, this fact only came in the impugned order. It is pertinent to mention here that had the answer of the question no 55 of the OMR sheet been erased on behalf of the applicant, as per the condition laid down in the OMR sheet, the same would have not been evaluated, however, in the present matter, the OMR sheet was evaluated and the applicant was found successful thereafter, the medical examination took place. Nothing is mentioned in the first show cause notice about this fact. For the first time in the impugned order this fact was disclosed by the respondents. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of RITU RAJ SINGH 11 | P a g e the case and comparing the plea of the parties, when OMR sheet has been evaluated and the applicant was shown successful then it shall be presumed that no erasure has been used or no answer of question no 55 has been erased at the end of the applicant as has been discussed hereinabove. Ground taken to cancel the candidature of the applicant on this ground is not sustainable. As regards to the second ground regarding mismatch of signature is concerned, in the similar circumstances, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Vijay Pal (supra) case has quashed the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the applicant therein as has been quoted hereinabove and the same has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Facts and circumstances of the instant case, on these grounds, are also similar although it is related to a different advertisement but settled principle of law can be applied in this matter also.
12. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant original application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to grant appointment to the applicant against the advertisement no. NER/RRC/D/2007/1. If no vacancy is available at present, a supernumerary post be created and the applicant be accommodated thereon till a regular vacancy is made available. This exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without fail.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
12 | P a g e