Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1022 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+            WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.7346/2011 &
             CM NO.16655/2011

                                 Date of Decision: 14th February, 2012.

ASHOK KUMAR                                 .... Petitioner
                      Through    Mr. N.L. Bareja, Advocate.


             versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
               Through           Mr. Sachin Dutta with
                                 Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA,J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter

is disposed of by a short order which is as follows:

2. Admittedly, the petition has been filed impugning the decision

of the respondents dated 10th August 2010 issued by the Staff Selection

Commission (SSC) cancelling his candidature on the ground that the

petitioner was overage.

3. Counsel for the respondents on instructions, and also on the

basis of what has been set down in the counter affidavit, submits that on

reconsideration of the matter, the respondents are satisfied that the

petitioner was not overage and to that extent, the order cancelling his

candidature cannot be sustained.

4. He further submits that although the petition deserves to be

allowed to that extent, however, a separate investigation is under way with

regard to the candidature of the petitioner on suspicion of impersonation

because some prima facie discrepancy has been noticed in the signatures of

the petitioner. Similar discrepancies were also noticed in the signatures of

some other candidates. In that connection, the specimen signatures

furnished by the petitioner along with his purported signatures on the

Admit Card and the Application Form etc. have since been forwarded to

the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Shimla,

whose opinion in the matter is awaited; and obviously, it would be open to

the respondents to take such action as may be available to them in law in

case opinion were to come against the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner states that the relief in the present

petition was confined to the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the

sole ground of his being overage. This is because no decision has been

communicated to the petitioner with regard to any discrepancy in his

candidature on any other ground, including the ground of impersonation,

discrepancy in the signatures etc., and he would, therefore, reserve the

right to impugn any adverse decision that may be taken by the respondents

hereafter in the matter of petitioner's candidature. Counsel for the

respondents has no objection to this.

6. Under the circumstances, and as agreed by counsel for the

parties, the communication dated 10th August, 2010 issued by the Staff

Selection Commission (SSC), which is annexed as Annexure P1 to this

petition, only to the limited extent that it declares the petitioner to be

overage, is quashed.

7. The respondents shall proceed with the further consideration

of the petitioner's candidature in accordance with the relevant rules and

regulations and as per law. Since the matter pertains to the examination

held in the year 2009, it is further directed that the respondents shall

complete all further scrutiny, investigation, etc. into the candidature of the

petitioner expeditiously and in any case, within three months from today. It

is open to the petitioner to impugn any action of the respondents, other

than the grievance raised by him in this petition, as he may be advised, and

in accordance with law.

8. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case where, even

though the sole reason for the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature

has been quashed, the petitioner's appointment cannot be processed further

because, as noticed above, some other aspect, unrelated to his age, is being

probed by the respondents whose outcome is uncertain; the interim orders

passed by this Court on 12th December, 2011 shall continue to remain in

force for further three months from the date any adverse decision on the

petitioner's candidature on the ground of discrepant signatures is

communicated to him. Needless to say that in case nothing adverse is

found against the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the petitioner's

case for appointment to the post of SI/GD in any one of the Central Police

Organizations which has been kept vacant in terms of interim orders

passed on 12th December, 2011.

9. The petition, along with CM No.16655/2011, is disposed of in

the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

10. Dasti to the parties.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

February 14, 2012 dr