“4. It is the case of the applicant that when before the candidature of the applicant was cancelled by the respondents, he was never put to any notice and therefore, there was complete violation of principles of natural justice, elaborating he draws attention to Para 6 of the impugned order, wherein it finds mention that the applicant has been debarred for a period of three years from the Commission's examinations. He argues that since the impugned order has civil consequences, principles of natural justice had to be followed mandatorily. He states that as his name appeared in the list of selected candidates, the right to legitimate expectation has accrued in his favour but the respondents have cancelled the candidature of the applicant on account of verification of the candidate's signatures, handwriting and thumb impression. He states that it is a settled law of the various High Courts as well as the Apex Court, that the CFSL report is not conclusive and cannot be the sole reason to cancel the candidature of the applicant. As the CFSL has verified only the signatures and handwriting and not thumb impression, the report of the CFSL should be ignored, as it was not a conclusive evidence, to arrive at a conclusion that, it is the case of impersonation. He states that while relying upon the CFSL report in the absence of the examination of the thumb impression, the candidature of the applicant could not be cancelled. He states that during the pendency of the OA, the law is evolved in favour of the applicant and time and again, the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Courts have reiterated that in the absence of thumb impression, the CFSL report would not be conclusive and the same could not be followed.
