Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Govind Singh vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 9 September, 2025
1
Item No. 50 (C-3) O.A No. 2715/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2715/2022
Reserved on : 01.09.2025
Pronounced on : 09.09.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
GOVIND SINGH
S/O SHRI ROHTASH SINGH
AGED 29 YEARS
R/O V&PO. LOWA KALAN
TEHSIL BAHADURGARH
DISTT. JHAJJAR, HARYANA-124507 .....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra)
Versus
1. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR NORTHERN REGION
BLOCK NO.12 (5TH FLOOR), CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Sangeeta Rani)
2 OA No. 2715/2022
Item 50 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Quash the order dated 25.07.2022 whereby not just the candidature of the Applicant has been cancelled but he has even been debarred, from appearing in future examinations of the Commission, by the Respondents for a period of 07 years and of the nomination list to the extent whereby the result of the Applicant has been put on hold; and b. Direct the Respondents to call for necessary records including the videography footage taken at the time of conducting the Paper-I examination and upon examination of the same, give effect to the result dated 06.03.2021 issued by the Respondents and thereby appoint the Applicant to the post he had applied for, being the Multi-Tasking (Non- Technical) Staff, with all consequential benefits."
2. The conspectus of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that in response to employment notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission in April 2019 to fill up various posts of Multi Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff, 2019 in different Ministries/Departments, the applicant being eligible applied for the same. The written examination was conducted on 09.08.2019 wherein he was declared successful and consequently he was subjected to the next examination i.e., Paper-II scheduled for 30.10.2020. This also he qualified. Thereafter he was called for document verification on 11.01.2021, where he submitted all the requisite documents. According to the counsel, though the applicant's name was also 3 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) included in the list of shortlisted candidates, he was not recommended for appointment. Rather, a remark that 'Pending due to suspected case' was shown against his name. Aggrieved by non supply of any cogent reason to withhold his result and consequent non appointment, the applicant approached the authorities to seek a reason as to why his candidature had been kept pending while result of others had been announced. After a considerable period of time, the respondents issued a memorandum dated 16.09.2021 and called the applicant on 30.09.2021 or 01.10.2021 in the office of SSC (Northern Region) for verification of his handwriting sample. Thereafter almost a year elapsed without any action on the part of the respondents and the applicant was anxiously waiting for the result of the handwriting sample. However, to his shock on 25.07.2022 the respondents issued an order whereby his candidature was cancelled and he stood debarred for a period of 07 years on the ground that he had impersonated another person. The counsel further stated that the applicant was not even served a copy of the forensic report before cancelling his candidature and he was also not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Hence, the action of the respondents are in violation of the principles of natural justice and reflect their ill intent. Distressed, the applicant preferred representation on 05.08.2022 to the respondents asking them to reconsider his candidature but to no avail. He also moved an RTI dated 12.08.2022 seeking certain information. However, it is still pending disposal. 4 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) Feeling victimised, he knocked the doors of this Tribunal seeking justice.
3. The learned counsel of the applicant argued on the following grounds :-
"1. The respondents have failed to appreciate that they themselves in order to maintain transparency and as a part of fairly administering the recruitment process, they, over and above the invigilators who were present at the selection centres, even made use of video cameras, so as to record the presence of candidates, in the form of a video, against their mentioned roll numbers, in order to avoid any future discrepancies, like for instance, any case of cheating by a candidate, or absence of a candidate or any other malpractice(s) adopted by any such candidate(s) in an examination hall.
2. The respondents have failed to appreciate that despite the name of the applicant appeared in the final result dated 06.03.2021, they had kept it in abeyance for reasons best known to them as nothing material was communicated to the applicant which in-turn made him slog his feet for months but the same was of no avail, as every time, he was informed that he shall be informed about the reason in the due course of time.
3. The respondents have failed to appreciate that not only at every stage of the selection process or to put in a manner, that time and again, they themselves had video-graphed the manner in which exams were being conducted but also, only after proper checking of the immediate necessary documents, were the candidates, including the applicant, 5 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) allowed to enter the examination premises. Even on entering the premises, as a way of cross checking, the biometrics of every candidate including that of the applicant was taken so that there is no scope of personification. Therefore, it cannot be said that all these measures taken by them were without an intention or a dummy exercise so as to make others believe that the examination is being conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
4. The respondents have failed to appreciate that it is at the back of the applicant, that they had outsourced the handwriting samples of the applicant so as to forensically examine the samples so collected and the writing and signatures in question and based upon on the recommendation/finding of the laboratory, they on its own deduced that the questioned writings and signatures of Paper-I examination and the sample writings and signatures are of two different persons.
5. The respondents have failed to appreciate that the impugned order has been issued without even providing the copy of the forensic report or even a chance to the applicant to present his side of the story to the competent authority, which is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but deep down reflects their ill intent while playing with the career of a candidate in such a haste manner.
6. The respondents have failed to appreciate that Paper-I was conducted at a designated computer centre with invigilators, security personnel all around and in a supervised controlled environment. Even before being allotted a seat there were various phases of identification check that one had to go through. On clearing each one of them and even securing a 6 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) place for himself with the selected list of candidates, they after a period of nearly 03 years are today of the view that the applicant impersonated someone else to clear the test. That more than the actual fault on the part of the applicant, it appears that the respondents have today made the applicant a whipping boy so as to cover up/justify their administrative lapse, at the cost of his own career.
7. The respondents have failed to appreciate that it is an accepted fact that the handwriting of a person/candidate may change/vary over the period of time. More so, when a candidate is writing his answer sheet in an examination hall, he is not only under a pressure to try to stand out from the crowd but also trying to achieving his dreams, in a time bound manner, which takes a toll over his/her handwriting. Meaning thereby, the manner in which a candidate writes during his leisure and in a hurry, both are significantly different yet are written by the same person. Similarly, in the present case, the examination conducted by them was so crucial that it would have decided the fate of the applicant, therefore, for any such candidate race against time is the only thing that revolves in their mind, and with that being the position, trying to make the handwriting presentable is the last of the last that comes in the mind of a candidate.
8. The respondents have failed to appreciate that what they are treating the applicant with is nothing less than the dictatorialness, as the impugned order, being punitive in nature, has completely stigmatised the career of the applicant before it even took off and what demoralises the most is that when the applicant is a being used as a mere means to 7 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) cover up their misadministration, if any, which is even more displeasing."
4. To strengthen his case, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon various decisions of different Courts which are listed below:-
(i) Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. - Writ A No. 2813/2017 (Allahabad High Court) dated 16.04.2018;
(ii) Ajai Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. - OA No. 1487/2004 dated 25.03.2011 and
(iii) Bhim Kumar Thakur vs. The North Frontier Railway & Ors. - OA No. 040-00356/2015 dated 01.09.2016.
While arguing, the counsel for the applicant handed across the Bar copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gourav vs. UOI & Ors. in W.P (C) No. 12544/2023 dated 13.12.2024 wherein the following has been held :-
"26. The decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature, therefore, stands vitiated on two grounds, independent of each other but each fatal in itself. The first is that, solely on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of the signature comparison report of the CFSL, no positive finding of impersonation or resort to unfair means could have been returned by the respondents. The second is that the petitioner's candidature could not have been cancelled without compliance with the principles of natural justice, which would include audi alteram partem.
27. The petitioner's prayer for quashing of the cancellation of his candidature, as made before the Tribunal, therefore, deserved to be allowed.
28. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Tribunal by also allowing the OA filed by the petitioner to the extent it challenged the cancellation of his candidature. The petitioner would be entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of MTS (NT), on merit, as per his position in the merit list, and be appointed, if so found 8 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) suitable, from the date of grant of appointment to others who had participated with him in the examination and secured appointment. The petitioner would also be entitled to consequential relief of seniority and counting of service, but not to back wages.
29. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms."
He also handed over a recent decision of this very Bench in OA No. 2848/2019 which according to him touches all the four corners of the case in hand. The findings of which are reproduced below :-
"13. We have gone through the impugned order once again, wherein para 6 clearly mentions that the applicant has been debarred from the Commission's examinations. We are no doubt that it is the stigmatic order and has civil consequences. The respondents ought to have extended the opportunity to the applicant and communicated the reason for passing the impugned order. This reason is sufficient to quash the impugned order. With respect to the contention of the applicant, the CFSL report based on signatures and handwriting is not conclusive and should be ignored. We may reserve our comments with respect to the same. The candidature of the applicant is under cloud and the cloud has to be cleared.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and the candidature of the applicant is restored. The respondents are directed to call the applicant and obtain his thumb impression and send the same to the CFSL to exclude of impersonation and only after the CFSL report is received and the question of impersonation with respect to the applicant is clearly established against him, the candidature of the applicant may be processed and taken to its logical conclusion. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in case the CFSL report finds favour to the applicant, the offer of appointment be extended to him along with consequential benefits on notional basis from the date his counterparts have joined against the said selection process from the date of actual appointment.
15. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."9 OA No. 2715/2022
Item 50 (C-3)
5. On the contrary, learned counsel of the respondents opposed the OA stating that during verification the handwritings/signatures of various candidates were found to be mismatched and therefore the result of such candidates including the applicant was withheld by the Commission. Moreover, in October 2021, to ascertain the veracity of the handwritings/signatures of such candidates the handwriting samples were collected from them and sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Shimla. In its report the CFSL held that the person who appeared in Paper II of the examination and the one who appeared before the Commission for furnishing samples of his handwritings and signatures are one and the same. However, the person who appeared in Paper-I of the examination and the one who appeared in Document Verification and before the Commission for furnishing samples of his hand writings and signatures are two different persons. Thus, it was confirmed that the applicant's case was of impersonation.
In her preliminary objection, the counsel for the respondents stated that a similarly situated candidate was also debarred from appearing in the Commission's examination on the basis of findings of the CFSL/GEQD. That applicant approached the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal vide OA No. 429/2003. However, the said OA was dismissed on 12.02.2004 observing that 'We have no reason to disbelieve the expert opinion.' He then approached the Allahabad High Court vide Writ Petition No. 56185/2004. However, the Hon'ble High Court also 10 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) dismissed the Writ Petition vide order dated 29.03.2006. In one another similar case the Allahabad Bench while dismissing OA No. 1147/2001 on 19.05.2010 observed that '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 find no illegality in the impugned order. The OA is accordingly dismissed.' Counsel further stated that the decision to debar the applicant from selection process is strictly in conformity with the extant rules and showing any kind of sympathy would open floodgates of such cases where on the basis of impersonation candidates were rejected.
6. Vide his rejoinder, while disputing the opinion of the handwriting expert (CFSL), learned counsel for the applicant has sought for a direction against the respondents to produce the videography done by them during examination, original admission ticket, answer sheets and sample writings of the applicant taken after a gap of two years when with the growing age, the handwritings may change.
7. Heard the rival contentions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments and decisions cited. We have observed that the issue in hand is no more res integra as the same has already been dealt with by this very Bench in 11 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) OA No. 2848/2019 dated 01.07.2025 wherein this Bench had directed the respondents to obtain the thumb impression of the applicant and to send the same to the CFSL to establish whether the applicant therein impersonated or not. We also observed that the Hon'ble High Court has in Gourav vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) allowed the Writ Petition holding that the comparison of signature itself does not establish impersonation and the candidature of a candidate could not have been cancelled without fulfilling the principles of natural justice which includes audi alteram partem.
However, in the instant case, we noticed that though the respondents send the specimen of the handwriting of the applicant to the CFSL for verification, they missed to verify his thumb impression which would have prevailed the truth.
8. We have also come across one of our latest decisions in OA No. 2848/2019 in Ankit vs. SSC & Others dated 01.07.2025 wherein we held as under :-
"13. We have gone through the impugned order once again, wherein para 6 clearly mentions that the applicant has been debarred from the Commission's examinations. We are no doubt that it is the stigmatic order and has civil consequences. The respondents ought to have extended the opportunity to the applicant and communicated the reason for passing the impugned order. This reason is sufficient to quash the impugned order. With respect to the contention of the applicant, the CFSL report based on signatures and handwriting is not conclusive and should be ignored. We may reserve our comments with respect to the same. The candidature of the applicant is under cloud and the cloud has to be cleared.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and the candidature of the applicant is restored. The respondents are directed to call the applicant and obtain his 12 OA No. 2715/2022 Item 50 (C-3) thumb impression and send the same to the CFSL to exclude of impersonation and only after the CFSL report is received and the question of impersonation with respect to the applicant is clearly established against him, the candidature of the applicant may be processed and taken to its logical conclusion. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in case the CFSL report finds favour to the applicant, the offer of appointment be extended to him along with consequential benefits on notional basis from the date his counterparts have joined against the said selection process from the date of actual appointment.
15. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."
From the above it is evident that science of handwriting is a weak science whereas the science of finger print is a perfect science. Evidence of handwriting and signature comparison is very weak evidence and cannot in any event be treated as conclusive. The sole evidence of Handwriting expert / Central Forensic Science Laboratory cannot normally be sufficient for recording a definite findings about the writing being of a certain person or not. The candidature of a candidate if to be rejected should be based on comparison of Left Thumb Impression (LTI) and not his/signatures and handwriting. Accordingly we are of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents (SSC) in rejecting the candidature of the applicant in this OA is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. To get to the bottom of the truth, the respondents should compare the applicants' left thumb impression as the science of finger print is a perfect science and more reliable than the science of handwriting.
13 OA No. 2715/2022Item 50 (C-3)
9. Accordingly, we would like to abide by our decision in OA No. 2848/2019 dated 01.07.2025 (supra) and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2022; and direct the respondents to call the applicant and obtain his LTI and send the same to CFSL for examination to rule out the possibility of impersonation. In case the LTI matches then the candidature of the applicant should be processed and taken to its logical conclusion with all consequential benefits on notional basis from the date his counterparts have joined against the said selection process from the date of actual appointment. The said exercise should be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/