Delhi High Court
Ravi Kaushik vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9854/2017 & C.M.40098/2017 & C.M. 40099/2017
RAVI KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Goel, Ms. Sharda Jha
& Mr. Shireen Kapoor, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for
Mr. S.D. Wirdesh, Advocates for respondent
No.1-UOI
Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh,
Advocates for respondent No.3-Canara Bank
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
08.11.2017
1. Petitioner, in this petition, is aggrieved of withholding of his
appointment as CWE- Clerk (VI) by Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection solely on the ground of discrepancy in biometric verification.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had sent an e-
mail on 21st August, 2017 (Annexure P-10) vide which he had inquired as
to how much time would it take to resolve the issue of discrepancy in
biometric verification and it was followed by reminder of 19th September,
2017 (Annexure P-12), but to no avail. Attention of this Court is drawn
by petitioner's counsel to a List of 12th September, 2017 (Annexure P-11)
pertaining to candidates whose results were not processed earlier for want
of documents, to highlight that petitioner's case is unduly delayed,
whereas other similarly placed candidates, whose joining was withheld,
have been made to join. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that select
list would lapse on 31st March, 2018 and so, respondent No.3- Canara
Bank ought to expeditiously take a call in petitioner's case.
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3- Canara Bank submits that
petitioner's specimen signatures and handwriting have been sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Hyderabad and result is awaited and
thereafter, petitioner will be apprised about outcome of biometric
verification.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner
apprised this Court that petitioner had tried to ascertain as to why there
was a discrepancy in biometric verification and upon medical
examination, it has now transpired that petitioner is suffering from
eczematous dermatitis and this information could not be divulged to
respondent- Bank because this fact was recently discovered on 13th
October, 2017.
5. Petitioner ought to have disclosed the aforesaid information to
respondent No.3-Canara Bank but in the facts and circumstances of this
case, petitioner is now permitted to do so, by making a concise and
comprehensive Representation along with medical proof to respondent
No.3- Canara Bank within three working days. If FSL, Hyderabad has
received the specimen handwriting and signatures of petitioner for
comparison with the questioned handwriting and signatures, then the said
process be expedited and its result be conveyed to respondent-Bank,
preferably within three weeks of receipt of this order. Let a reminder be
sent to FSL, Hyderabad by respondent No.3- Canara Bank along with a
copy of this order to ensure its compliance. Respondent No.3-Canara
Bank, within three weeks of receipt of report from FSL Hyderabad in
respect of handwriting and signatures of petitioner, shall take the
decision on petitioner's Representation and convey it to petitioner within
a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as
available in law, if need be.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
7. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel representing both the
sides.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 08, 2017
r
