Delhi High Court
Niraj Siwach vs Union Of India & Anr. on 18 November, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005005
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2022
+ W.P.(C) 6192/2020 & CM APPL. 22189/2020
NIRAJ SIWACH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Ms. Shivangi Shokeen
and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocates with petitioner
in person.
For the Respondent: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky
Kumar and Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocates for UOI
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 08.01.2020 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the
Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.
2. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground
that the Ex-Government Examiner for Questionable Documents has
opined that the hand-writing/signatures on the application, OMR
Sheet, documents verification performa do not match.
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:22.11.2022 10:27:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005005
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
dated 12.10.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 6256/2019 titled 'Sombir Vs. Staff
Selection Commission & Anr.'
4. The original application form dated 03.02.2014, OMR sheet
dated 09.11.2014, hand-writing recognition form dated 11.08.2015
and the medical memorandum dated 11.08.2015 which were the
documents which were examined by the examiner have been produced
in Court.
5. The examiner has opined that the person who wrote the red
enclosed writing, stamped and marked 'A2' 'A3' and 'A4' did not
write the red enclosed writing similarly stamped and marked 'A1'.
The question document mark 'A1' is the application form and the
admitted documents 'A2' 'A3' and 'A4' are the OMR sheets, hand-
writing recognition form and medical memo, respectively.
6. The opinion of the examiner of Questionable Documents
confirms that Petitioner is the one who had appeared for the
examination as his signatures and hand writing on the OMR Sheet,
hand writing recognition form and Medical Memo tally.
7. The impugned order rejecting the candidature on the ground
that the Petitioner has resorted to unfair means and resorted to
malpractices / unfair means in the said papers is accordingly not
supported by the examiners report. The examiners report confirms that
the Petitioner is the one who had appeared for the examination.
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:22.11.2022 10:27:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005005
8. The opinion rendered by examiner is that handwriting and
signatures of Petitioner does not tally with his application form. The
application form mandates that the application form must be filled by
the candidate himself in his own handwriting. On a visual comparison
of the writing and signatures on the application form with the OMR
Sheet, handwriting recognition form and Medical Memo, it prima
facie appears that the same have been written by the same individual.
9. However, even if, the findings of examiner were to be taken
into account, at least what is borne out from it is that the person who
has appeared in the examination is the Petitioner himself as such there
is no malpractice or unfair means adopted by the Petitioner in taking
the examination.
10. Even if, there is some dissimilarity in the application form and
the OMR Sheet, handwriting recognition form and Medical Memo, the
same would not vitiate the examination for the reason that examiner
has confirmed that it is the Petitioner himself who had appeared in the
examination. For that reason even though the examiner's report
records that the application form and the OMR Sheet, handwriting
recognition form and Medical Memo do not tally, we are of the view
that no malpractice or unfair means can be said to have been adopted
by the Petitioner at the time of examination.
11. Consequently, we are of the view that Respondents have
erroneously rejected the candidature of the Petitioner.
12. In view of the above, impugned order of the Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:22.11.2022 10:27:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005005
cancelling petitioner's candidature and the order of the Tribunal dated
08.01.2020 are not sustainable and are accordingly set aside and the
respondents are directed to process the candidature of the petitioner in
accordance with law. The exercise be concluded within a period of
eight weeks from today.
13. The petition is allowed in above terms and the pending
application also stands disposed of.
14. The original file which has been produced in Court has been
perused and after perusal returned to the learned counsel for the
respondent.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2022
'rs'
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:22.11.2022 10:27:39
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
