Delhi High Court
Bhagat Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 May, 2013
Author: Gita Mittal
$~9
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3583/2013
% Date of decision: 30th May, 2013
BHAGAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Shanker Chhabra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhiber and Ms.Aakriti
Jain, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 30.05.2013
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
CM No. 6713/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3583/2013
1. With the consent of both the sides, this writ petition is taken up for
hearing.
2. The instant case relates to selection as a Constable(GD) in the Central
Armed Police Forces pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2012. There
appears to be an error in the typing of the year in the date of the impugned
Memorandum. The year thereof has been wrongly mentioned as '2012'
instead of '2013'. The error is apparent inasmuch as the said
communication has been issued with regard to a Selection Process
conducted in August, 2012.
3. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has impugned this
Memorandum dated 15th March, 2013(wrongly mentioned as 15th March,
2012) vide which the petitioner's candidature for the post of Constable (GD)
in the ITBPF was cancelled on the ground that upon scrutiny of the
documents, the respondents found that the petitioner has signed in capital
letters of English which was not permissible as per notice of the
examination.
4. It is submitted that the issues raised in the instant writ petition are
squarely covered by the judicial pronouncements of this court in the
following cases and that the instant petition can be disposed of in the light
and the reasons recorded therein. :-
(i)Decision dated 24th February, 2012 in W.P.(C) No.
1004/2012 titled as Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board and Another v. Neeraj Kumar and
Another.
(ii ) Decision dated 5th November, 2012 in W.P. (C)
No. 6959/2012 titled as Bittoo v. Union of India and
another.
(iii) Decision dated 4th December, 2012 in W.P.(C)
No. 7158/2012 titled as Pawan Kumar and Union of
India and another.
5. We find there is no dispute to the material facts. The impugned order
sets out the above reason for the same. The adjudication in the above noted
judgments and orders would guide adjudication of the present matter as
well.
6. It is well settled that there is no law which prohibits a person to sign
in capital letters. As observed in Pawan Kumar (supra), a signature is a
trait which a person develops over a period of time and these traits can
develop even with reference to capital letters.
7. For the reasons recorded in the judgments and orders as mentioned
above, we are of the view that the writ petitioner cannot be denied
consideration for appointment, and if otherwise eligible for the appointment,
to the post of Constable (GD) in the ITBPF on the ground his signatures
have been done in English capital letters.
8. In this background and in the light of the facts as mentioned above,
while setting aside the Memorandum dated 15th March, 2013 (wrongly
written as '2012'), we allow the writ petition with the following directions to
the respondents:-
(i) The respondents shall treat the petitioner's
application as valid and shall consider the
petitioner's entitlement to selection and appointment
as a Constable (GD) in ITBPF keeping in view his
merit position in the Selection List and any other
criteria as is applicable in the instant case; and
(ii) The respondents shall ensure that all the
necessary steps towards this purpose are completed
within a period of six weeks from today and would
be conveyed to the petitioner accordingly.
9. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Dasti.
CM No. 6712/2013
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application is
rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 30, 2013
j
