Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Usha Meena vs North Eastern Railway on 14 January, 2026
Reserved on 09.01.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 14th day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1315 of 2024
Usha Meena aged about 40 years, W/o Shri Indraj Meena R/o
Village, Post & Tehsil - Sikrai, District - Dausa (Rajasthan), Present
Address: E-165/A, D.R.M. Office, Colony, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New
Delhi.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri K.P. Singh
ORDER
(By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial) Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
"(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the orders impugned dated 16.10.2024 and 26.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. RITU RAJ A-1 to this O.A.) with compilation No. I. SINGH
1|Page
(ii) To issue an order or direction, in the suitable nature, directing the respondent department to issue the panel list against the notified post of Chief Law Assistant for the ST category pursuant to notification dated 23.02.2019 and further direct the respondent no issue an offer of an appointment to the applicant within stipulated period of time which may specified by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) To issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award costs."
3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the orders dated 16.10.2024 and 26.03.2024 passed by the respondent no 2 thereby declining the issuance of offer of appointment to the applicant on the post of Chief Law Assistant which the applicant claims to have qualified for. The applicant who belongs to the ST category has also sought direction to the respondents to issue the panel list against the notified post of Chief Law Assistant for the ST category pursuant to the notification dated 23.02.2019 and accordingly issue offer of appointment in this regard.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of Chief Law Assistant against the Employment Notice (CEN) No. 03/2019 dated 23.02.2019 against Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. His application form was accepted and roll number for written examination was issued. The applicant appeared in the written examination and on her being successful in it, she was permitted to appear for document verification. The applicant appeared for document verification on 05.07.2022. Some query was raised during the document verification regarding the prefix used against the name of the applicant i.e., Kum. And Ms. It is further RITU RAJ argued that the aforesaid query was clarified by the applicant on the SINGH
2|Page basis of certificate issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, again document verification was completed and all the documents submitted by the applicant were found genuine. She was directed to appear for medical test. It is further argued that the applicant was also found fit in the medical test. A panel was declared on 26.09.2022 but no candidate was included in the panel against the ST vacancy. It is also argued that the applicant sent repeated requests for declaring the result against the ST category vacancy. No information was given to the applicant and resultantly, the applicant filed OA No 863 of 2023 before this Bench which was disposed of on 18.10.2023 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. Since direction given in the OA was not complied with , the applicant filed Contempt Petition No 36 of 2024 and thereafter the respondents passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 and the applicant's claim for appointment was rejected on frivolous grounds. It is further argued that first, the chairman of the Board concerned had verified all the facts including the fingerprint and no discrepancy was found. Nothing was found against the applicant in the CCTV footage during the examination and due to this reason, the applicant was permitted to appear in the medical test. When the then chairman was transferred, his successor raised the same objection which had already been resolved. Referring to the impugned order, it was further argued that facts disclosed in the Document Verification officer report as "not Ok" is incorrect as word Kum. was being used by the applicant before her marriage. On her marriage, the word Ms. was being used. Discrepancy shown in the name on this ground is not fatal for appointment of the applicant and on this basis, it cannot be assumed that there were two different persons appeared in the examination. Similarly, the fingerprint if was unfit for verification, the same cannot be a ground to reject the candidature. It is also argued that in the impugned order in the column of video footage, "suspicious activities found during Bio-metric registration" is shown but what type of suspicious activities were found have not been specifically disclosed and thus all the grounds taken in the impugned RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page order for cancelling the candidature of the applicant are not sufficient for cancelling the candidature.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the applicant's case is squarely covered with the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in its judgment dated 16.04.2018 in Writ A No 2813 of 2017 titled Ran Vijay and others Vs Union of India and others and connected matters and also in its judgment dated 16.05.2023 in Writ A No 21096 of 2018 titled Vijay Pal and others Vs Union of India and others. It is argued that in Vijay Pal (supra) case, the Union of India had also filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed and thus, the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court had attained finality. Applicant's candidature solely on the basis of mismatch in the biometric and fingerprint cannot be held as a ground for cancelling it. It is also argued that one post against the ST category is still lying vacant and thus argued to allow the OA and to direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to issue offer of appointment in favour of the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that a number of discrepancies were found in the documents submitted by the applicant as well as in the biometric verification and fingerprint. Applicant's activities were also found suspicious during biometric registration and thus, the competent authority has rightly rejected the candidature of the applicant. It is also argued that a candidate has no vested right to get appointment only on this basis that he was successful in the examination and was found in the merit list. Since specific reason for cancelling the candidature of the applicant has been shown in the impugned order, thus prayer made by the applicant is not liable to be allowed. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. It is also argued that the applicant cannot get any help from the law laid down in the case of Ran Vijay (supra) and Vijay Pal (supra) as in those cases, the applicants therein have approached before the Court against different notification.
RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page
8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the records.
9. In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant has applied for the post of Chief Law Assistant against the ST category vacancy. She was successful in the written examination. In the document verification, defect which was pointed out by the respondents has also been removed and a certificate certifying that applicant's name as well as the name disclosed in the educational certificate is the same has been obtained. It further appears that applicant after document verification was sent for medical examination and she was successful in medical examination also, when final panel of selected candidates was published, no candidate against the ST vacancy was mentioned. In the impugned order, as disclosed hereinabove, for cancelling the candidature of the applicant, discrepancy in the name of the applicant in the application form as well as educational certificate and the mismatch of biometric verification were also found, even fingerprint of the applicant was recorded as "unfit for verification". It is also mentioned in the impugned order, that in video footage, suspicious activities were found during biometric registration. If all the facts disclosed in the impugned order are taken into consideration, as far as the discrepancy in the name of the applicant in the educational certificate as well as in the application form etc, is concerned, mere mentioning of the word Kum. (Kumari) as prefix against the name of the applicant in educational certificate is not sufficient to conclude that name of the applicant disclosed in the educational certificate is different from the name of the candidate who had applied in this matter. It is a common practice in our society that before marriage, a girl uses the initial Kum. or Kumari as prefix before her name and after marriage, they prefer to right Ms. or Mrs. or Smt. and thus cancelling of the candidature of the applicant on this ground is not appealable and acceptable. As regards to the other grounds taken in the impugned order, in the similar circumstances although in different notifications, in the case of Ran Vijay (supra) and Vijay Pal (supra), candidates RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page have approached before the Tribunal and orders passed by the Tribunal were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. In the case of Ran Vijay (supra), respondents' competent authority was directed as follows:
"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 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. Attention of the Court has been invited to pages 252, 253, 273, 274, 333 and 334, which contain identical expressions. Report at pages 513, 594 and 554 also contain identical language. In case an opportunity was afforded to the petitioners then all such materials could have been highlighted.
26. The respondents were expected to confront the petitioners with material relied upon against them. A show cause containing such materials was required to have been issued, particularly when petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any other exam conducted by Commission for three years. The notice dated 5.8.2015 cannot be construed as a show cause notice. It only called upon the petitioners to give their specimen signatures, handwriting and thumb impression in view of Commission's opinion that they do not match. After the CFSL report was received neither the petitioners were put to any notice, nor the content of report was made known to them.
27. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their officers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic.
28. Respondents cannot find support for their action on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (supra), inasmuch as compassionate appointment was claimed by the respondent Dhirjo Kumar Sengar on the basis of his adoption. The adoption itself was not established. In such circumstances, it was observed that facts of the case clearly fell in the well recognized exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem. The present case also does not RITU RAJ fall in category of cases of mass-copying, where exclusion of principles of SINGH
6|Page natural justice stands judicially recognized. As a matter of fact, no adverse report was ever received at the time of examination and it is at a subsequent point of time that allegation of impersonation is made and held to be proved only upon opinion of handwriting expert. The judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon by the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 2052. This judgment relates to land acquisition proceedings and has no relevance for present purposes.
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."
In Vijay Pal (supra) case, the OA was dismissed by the Tibunal and the applicants had challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad through a writ petition which was allowed. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:
"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.
RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page
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 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 RITU RAJ the same date is extracted:
SINGH
8|Page "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, 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 RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page 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 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 RITU RAJ and basis of the show cause notice/memorandum issued to them. It is further SINGH 10 | P a g e 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 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.
RITU RAJ SINGH 11 | P a g e
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 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 RITU RAJ unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that SINGH 12 | P a g e 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.
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".
10. Since discrepancy in the educational certificate with regard to the name of the applicant as has been discussed hereinabove are not material to cancel the candidature of the applicant, similarly, solely on the basis of mismatch of biometric verification and the "unfit for verification" remark with regard to fingerprint which are based on expert opinion, the candidature of the applicant ought not to have been rejected. It is also clarified that opinion formed by the competent authority in the impugned order are not supported by other material. The phrase "suspicious activities" has been disclosed in the impugned order but what sort of suspicious activities were being adopted by the applicant has not been specifically disclosed. Thus, RITU RAJ SINGH 13 | P a g e we are of the view that grounds taken by the applicant in the OA in light of the ratio laid down in the case of Vijay Pal (supra) are liable to be accepted. Impugned order is liable to be set aside and the OA is liable to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to issue offer of appointment in favour of the applicant on the post of Chief Law Assistant as the post is said to be still lying vacant against the ST category. Needless to say, the conferment of appointment shall be made if there is no any other legal impediment besides the one which have already been discussed hereinabove. This exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, without fail.
12. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
14 | P a g e