Disposed¶34

Prashant Kaushik v. Staff Selection Commission (Wr)

Bombay HC8 Jan 2025WP/3450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No.3450 of 2024, Bombay High Court, decided 16 June 2025, Coram M. S. Karnik & N. R. Borkar, JJ.; petitioner Prashant Kaushik v. Staff Selection Commission (WR) & anr. Keywords: cancellation of candidature; Sub-Inspector Delhi Police; ASI/CPO Exam 2017; show-cause notice; CFSL/FSL handwriting expert report; personal hearing; Tribunal dismissal of OA at admission stage; failure to consider contentions; natural justice; impugned order set aside; remand to Tribunal for fresh hearing; no opinion on merits; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; original application remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, with no expression of opinion on the merits; writ petition disposed of. ¶34

Prashant Kaushik vs Staff Selection Commission (Wr) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; original application remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, with no expression of opinion on the merits; writ petition disposed of.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the original application at the admission stage, without dealing with the contentions raised by the applicant in challenge to the cancellation of his candidature, calls for interference by the High Court.

¶30

Court's answer

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the petitioner's contentions; it only recorded that the applicant in effect sought to challenge the handwriting expert's opinion in the CFSL report and held that a CFSL report cannot be relied upon or challenged unless exhibited by a witness who could be cross-examined, which would require a trial.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal should have decided the original application on the contentions raised by the petitioner; the impugned order calls for interference as it does not deal with any of the contentions raised in the original application.

¶30

Key takeaways

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the original application is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing in accordance with law; the Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits of any of the contentions.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram M. S. Karnik & N. R. Borkar, JJ. (oral order per M. S. Karnik, J.), 16 June 2025 - Writ Petition No.3450 of 2024, Prashant Kaushik v. Staff Selection Commission (WR) & anr. The petitioner's candidature (ASI/CPO Exam, 2017; post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police) had been cancelled by Staff Selection Commission (WR) by order dated 29.11.2022 after show-cause notice, the respondents relying on a CFSL handwriting expert report opining that the person who wrote the standard writings/signatures (S1 to S16) did not write the questioned writings/signatures (Q3, Q4 and Q5). After a personal hearing given in deference to a prior Bombay High Court direction in WP No 759 of 2020, at which the applicant produced no evidence or witnesses, the Tribunal dismissed the original application at the admission stage, holding that a CFSL report cannot be relied upon or challenged unless exhibited by a witness who could be cross-examined, which would require a trial. The Division Bench found that the Tribunal had not dealt with any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the original application; the impugned order was set aside and the original application remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, with no opinion expressed on the merits. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-OS:8841-DB

¶2

22.wp.3450-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3450 OF 2024

¶5

Prashant Kaushik ..Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Staff Selection Commission (WR) and anr. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prashant Trivedi i/b. Ms. Khushboo Jain, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, for the Respondents.

¶9

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 16^th JUNE, 2025

¶11

ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J .) :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the Petition.

¶14

3. It is submitted by Mr. Rodrigues that there is a serious charge that somebody else has written the examination paper on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Rodrigues relied upon the FSL report in support of his submissions.

¶15

4. The Tribunal by the impugned order has stated thus :-

PMB

22.wp.3450-2024.doc

“By way of the present OA applicant has sought appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. He has challenged the order dated 29.11.2022 issued by Staff Selection Commission (WR), whereby the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled after issuance of show-cause notice to him. It is stated that he had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay seeking his appointment and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before arriving at a final decision in pursuance to the show-cause notice issued by them.

¶20

The respondents, in deference to the direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No 759 of 2020, provided personal hearing and gave an opportunity to him to present his evidences and the witnesses to prove that he was the one who had appeared in all phases of ASI/CPO Exam, 2017. It has been recorded in the order that the applicant was unable to produce any evidence/witnesses and only offered an explanation that there was only a mismatch in signatures.

¶21

Respondents, in turn, have relied upon the CFSL report which is also annexed with the OA. The handwriting expert has opined in the said report as under :

¶22

“I am of the opinion that the person who wrote the enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S16 did not write the enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q3, Q4 and Q5. This opinion is based on the fundamental differences in handwriting characteristics observed between the Questioned and Standard Set of writings"

¶23

In the present OA, the applicant in effect seeks to challenge the opinion of the handwriting expert as recorded by him in the CFSL report. As CFSL report cannot be relied upon/challenged, unless the same is exhibited by some witness who could be cross examined and thus would require a trial.

¶24

In view of the above, the OA is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Pending MA, if any, also stands dismissed. No costs.”

PMB

22.wp.3450-2024.doc

5. We thus find that the Tribunal has not adverted to

¶29

any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the challenge to the order impugned before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only recorded that the Applicant in effect seeks to challenge the opinion of the handwriting expert as recorded by him in the CFSL report and held that the CFSL report cannot be relied upon/challenged, unless the same is exhibited by some witness who could be cross-examined and thus would require a trial.

¶30

6. In our opinion, the Tribunal should have decided the original application based upon the contentions raised by the Petitioner (original applicant) in its challenge to the order impugned before the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal calls for interference as it does not deal with any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner in the original application. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The original application is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing and in accordance with law. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of any of the contentions.

PMB

22.wp.3450-2024.doc

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶36

¶37

PMB Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/06/2025 16:48:23