Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Union Of India & Ors vs Nur Islam Sk on 13 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
FMA 708 of 2024
IA NO: CAN/1/2024
The Union of India & ors.
vs.
Nur Islam Sk
For the Appellants : Mr. Amitabha Nayak, Advocate
Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Malay Bhattacharya, Advocate
Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh, Advocate
Heard on : 13.09.2024
Judgment on : 13.09.2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against an
order dated July 17, 2023 passed in W.P.A. 15158 of 2022 by which the writ
petition was dismissed.
2. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that, the respondent
participated in a selection process for the post of Constable (General Duty) in
Central Armed Police Force, NIA and SSA and Rifleman in General Duty in
Assam Rifles conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Government of
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
India.
High Court of
Calcutta
17 th of September
2024 05:17:45 PM
FMA 708 of 2024
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that,
respondent was successful in selection process and was issued an
appointment letter. Thereafter, respondent received a cancellation letter dated
May 10, 2022 which was impugned in the writ petition.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of
the Court to the Rules governing selection process. He submits that, Staff
Selection Commission is not questioning the candidature of the appellant. The
appointing authority cannot question the candidature of the appellant on the
pretext as put forward. The so called discrepancies are not material so as to
result in a letter of cancellation.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the Union of India submits that, there
were discrepancies between the signature submitted by the respondent prior to
the commencement of the selection process and the documents that he signed
while taking the examination. She refers to the impugned order. She submits
that, an exercise was undertaken by the learned Single Judge to examine the
relevant documents through an agency. Such agency stated that, there was a
mismatch. Moreover, she draws the attention of the Court to the efforts
undertaken by this Court in calling for a report with regard to the Biometric.
She submits a report pursuant to the order dated July 29, 2024 passed by this
Court which be taken on record. She submits that, left thumb impression
taken during the computer test examination did not match with the
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
17 th of September
2024 05:17:45 PM
FMA 708 of 2024
subsequent thumb impression obtained from the identity verification of the
candidate and fingerprint slip.
6. Respondent before us participated in a selection process undertaken
by the Staff Selection Commission. He was given a letter of appointment. Such
letter of appointment contained a clause that in the event, any discrepancy was
found, the appointment can be cancelled.
7. Authorities issued a letter of cancellation dated May 10, 2022 which
was made the subject-matter of the challenge in the writ petition resulting the
impugned order.
8. In the letter of cancellation dated May 10, 2022, the authorities
stated that, handwriting and signatures in the admission certification on
Computer Based Examination did not match with the specimen handwriting
and signature as collected from the appellant at detailed medical examination
stage.
9. This issue was looked into more elaborately by the learned Single
Judge. Learned Single Judge called for forensic examination by the Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata with regard to the signatures and
handwriting involved. The Director of Questioned Document Examination
Bureau (QDEB), CID, West Bengal submitted a report which was adverse to the
appellant.
10. To satisfy our conscience, we by our order dated July 29, 2024
Signed By :
called for the authorities to submit a report with regard to the thumb
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
17 th of September
2024 05:17:45 PM
FMA 708 of 2024
impression appearing on the admission certification of the appellant and the
biometrics given by the appellant at the time of the writing examination.
11. Report dated September 10, 2024, submitted in terms of our order
dated July 29, 2024 states that, the thumb impression taken during the
computer based examination did not match with the specimen thumb
impression obtained on identity verification of the candidate and finger print
slip.
12. Evidence placed on record does not advance the case of the
appellant any further. The stand taken by the authorities in issuing the
cancellation letter dated May 10, 2022 is not established to be perverse.
Materials placed suggest an instance of impersonation, if not anything else.
13. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal.
14. FMA 708 of 2024 along with connected application are disposed of
without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
15. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
CHC/Dd
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
17 th of September
2024 05:17:45 PM
