Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging rejection of police constable candidature due to signature mismatch. High Court found no merit in contestant's plea for fresh opportunity to explain, upholding the Handwriting Expert's conclusion of non-matching signatures.
Special Appeal No. 328 of 2018 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. 328 of 2018 Appellant :- Afsrun Respondent :- Union of India and another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Narayan Singh, Rajnish Kumar Rai
Hon’ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 15th March, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 46449 of 2015.
Succinctly, facts of the case are that in pursuance of an advertisement No. 1 of 2011, the appellant-petitioner submitted an application in prescribed proforma to be considered for appointment as Constable. Considering the appellantpetitioner eligible, he was permitted to participate in written examination which was conducted on 23rd June, 2013. After qualifying the written test, he also qualified physical test and the interview. A direction then was given to him to face medical examination on 11th and 14th July, 2014. Final result of the process of the selection was declared on 17th September, 2015 wherein the appellant-petitioner was not placed in the select list. Being aggrieved by the same, he submitted a representation to the Authority concerned but of no consequence. A petition for writ bearing No. 53262 of 2014 then was filed by the petitioner wherein a direction was given to the Authority competent to disclose the reasons for not placing the appellant-petitioner in the select list. Accordingly, vide order dated 29th May, 2015, it was conveyed to the appellant-petitioner that the signatures made by him at the time of verification are different than the signatures given as specimen, hence his candidature was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29th May, 2015, the appellantpetitioner again preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellantpetitioner is that before cancelling candidature of the appellant-petitioner, an opportunity to advance explanation should have been given and further the decision taken by the competent Authority is based on opinion of Handwriting Expert which in normal course cannot be treated as conclusive.
Heard learned counsel and also perused the original record pertaining to the process of selection including the signatures made by the appellant-petitioner
on different documents relating to the process referred above. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that on 14th September, 2018, this Court ordered to have a fresh report of Handwriting Expert and that too has been shown to us. A photocopy of the fresh Handwriting Expert’s report is also taken on record.
Precisely, the argument advanced by learned counsel is that an opportunity for explanation should have been given to the appellant-petitioner before cancelling his candidature. In the case in hand that appears to be an antiformality only. As already stated, at the first instance, an Expert’s report was availed by the respondents wherein opinion given was against the appellantpetitioner. In the report aforesaid, Expert opined that the signatures are not at all matching and those appears to have been made by different persons. Same is the position in the second Expert’s report also. The second report quite specifically provides details on basis of which opinion has been given. The Handwriting Expert has compared demography including curves and other natural structures of two different writings.
We have also seen the signatures and even by open eyes differences in the same are on face.
In entirety, we do not find any just reason to disbelieve the opinion given by the Handwriting Experts.
On asking, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner too is not in position to satisfy us to disbelieve the Handwriting Expert’s opinion and further that what kind of explanation would have been given by the appellant-petitioner, if an opportunity to explain all the circumstances would have been accorded. The mischief in signatures is so apparent that the error, if any, relating to providing an opportunity to the appellant-petitioner to explain the circumstances occurred then that too is so minor and it would not be having any adverse effect in relation to the decision arrived by the competent Authority.
Learned Single Bench, in our considered opinion, rightly refused to interfere in the matter. No interference therein, as such, is warranted.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2018/Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh opportunity to explain was required before rejecting candidature based on non-matching signatures.
Whether the opinion of a fresh Handwriting Expert was sufficient to confirm the rejection of candidature.
Whether the High Court acted correctly in declining to interfere with the Single Bench's dismissal of the writ petition.
Afsrun
Union of India
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
