Deepak Dhankar vs Union Of India And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 5102 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Judgment Delivered on: August 29, 2012

+                            W.P.(C) No.5334/2012


       DEEPAK DHANKAR                   ..... Petitioner
                    Represented by:Mr.Shanker Chhabra,
                                   Advocate.

                        versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS             ..... Respondents
                      Represented by:Mr.Ankur Chhibber,
                                     Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and writ petition is being disposed of at the preliminary hearing without a counter affidavit being required to be filed, since the issue is no longer res integra.

2. The subject of a candidate penning his signature in capital letters was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated February 24, 2012 in W.P.(C) No.1004/2012, DSSSB & Anr. vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr.

3. The Division Bench noted that the purpose of a signature is to identify the signatory for the reason a signature is a writing by a person in a distinctive way and is a form of identification of the person concerned and this process need not be by way of what is commonly understood as running signatures.

4. On the subject of impersonation, the Division Bench

noted that by affixing the photograph of the candidate on the admit card this menace can be well tackled.

5. As regards the facts in this case the same are that while submitting the application form when the petitioner applied to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Paramilitary Forces, he signed in capital letter, but not as a child would write his name in capital letters.

6. The name of the petitioner is 'DEEPAK'. The distinctiveness is that the alphabets 'D' 'E' 'E' are disjunctive but the next three letters i.e 'P', 'A' and 'K' are continuous i.e. the loop of the letter P moving forward to write the letter capital A and the pen moving forward to write the letter K.

7. The manner in which the petitioner signs DEEPAK shows that even while signing in capital letters distinctiveness in character and individual identity is being retained in the signature.

8. For the reasons recorded by the Division Bench, with which we concur, and adopting the same, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned memorandum dated April 17, 2012 whereunder candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled on the sole ground of the signatures being in capital letters.

9. We may also note, as desired by learned counsel for the respondent, that in the advertisement in question it was specifically brought to the notice of the candidate that the signatures should be in running hand and signatures in capital letters of English shall not be accepted.

10. Learned counsel seeks to urge that every part of an advertisement is required to be complied with by the candidates.

11. Highlighting this was the very issue with reference to a similarly worded advertisement, in Neeraj Kumar (supra) case, was opined upon, and to which reasons we would only add that this requirement has to be treated as directory and not mandatory especially when the post in question is at the lowest rung of the ladder. The reason being that for these posts, minimum qualification prescribed is generally matriculate, and thus candidates have low literacy.

12. We direct the respondents to proceed ahead with the entitlement of the petitioner to be appointed as Constable (GD) keeping in view his merit position in the select list.

13. No costs.

14. Dasti.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 29, 2012 gm