Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Vikki Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 October, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. SWP No. 1693/2013
Reserved on :25.09.2025
Pronounced on :10.10.2025
Uploaded on : 10.10.2025
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced
Vikki Kumar
.... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Anil Gupta, Advocate
V/s
Union of India and Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi,CGSC
\
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the petitioner is that vide Advertisement Notice dated
03.12.2011, published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar, the
respondents invited applications for the post of Constable in ITBPF,
BSF, CISF, CRPF & SSB and Rilfeman (GD) in Assam Rifles. The
eligibility criteria prescribed in the said notification regarding
qualification was matriculation along with other physical standards as
mentioned in the said notification.
2. The petitioner, having passed matriculation in the year 2006, and
belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for the post of
Constable. He was selected and figured at Sr. No. 15 in the select list.
After his selection, his appointment came to be rejected on the ground
that he had put signatures in capital letters on the application form
instead of small letters.
3. The petitioner's case is that the order of rejection is illegal,
arbitrary, and unconstitutional. Insofar, as the selection and appointment
of the petitioner as a Constable in the said force is concerned, the
petitioner contends that he has fulfilled all requisite qualifications and
eligibility criteria, and was duly selected and found fit for appointment.
Therefore, once having been selected and found suitable, his selection
could not have been cancelled without any justifiable reason or in due
process of law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not
adhere to the instructions contained in the notice of examination and
signed in capital letters. The petitioner has not signed the form as per
the requirements under the Colum 21 and 22, of Brochure which
provides for rejection.
5. When the application form is not signed in running hand but in
capital letters, the question that arises for consideration in the petition is
whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner's
selection merely on the ground that the application form was signed in
capital letters instead of running hand. Colum 21 and 22 of the
Brochure which provide instructions for filling up the application form
read as under :-
"Signature of Candidate (Wherever required) please sing in
running hand. Signature in Capital letters of English shall
not be accepted and your application shall be summarily
rejected. Unsigned application shall also be rejected."
6. Similar issue has already been dealt with by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in case titled Avtar Singh V/s Union of India and Ors.
(CWP No. 13810 of 2011) decided on 30.09.2011 and also in case titled
Naveen Kumar & ors. V/s Union of India and Ors (CWP No. 15136 of
2011) decided on 31.01.2011. Similar issues were raised in this petition
and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the
petitioner did not adhere to the instructions and signed the application
form in Capital letters. Relevant paragraph Nos. 9 to 11 of the judgment in
Avtar Singh's case (supra) reads as under:-
(9) I have considered the assertions made by the petitioners,
as also the counter assertions made by the learned counsel
for the respondents. It is indeed an unfortunate case where
the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected solely on
the ground that he had mentioned his name in capital
letters instead of appending his signatures against the
Colum which warranted such an information. The petition
does not level any allegation of unfair selection and in view
of this, the action of the respondents be construed to be in
conformity with the rules and instructions stipulated in the
advertisement.
(10) The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in a public
appointment, the response to such an advertisement is often
overwhelming and a number of people who respond, is
always far in excess of the advertised posts which in turn
would lead to a cumbersome selection process. It is brought
to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is not an
isolated case of facing such a situation, but there are other
people also whose candidature has been cancelled on the
ground that their forms were not in conformity with the
instructions.
(11). In view of this, accepting the plea of the petitioner
would be inviting a catasphoric situation where the entire
selection process of the persons who have participated,
would be put to a risk.
7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner has signed the
application form in capital letters, which is contrary to the instructions
contained in Colum 21 and 22 of the Brochure which specifically provide
that signature of the candidate must be in running hand and that an
application signed in capital letters shall be liable to rejection. It is thus,
evident that the petitioner has failed to comply with the prescribed
requirements as contained in column 21 & 22 of the Brochure therefore
his form was not in conformity with the instructions.
8. In view of the above it is held that, the instant writ petition, being
devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
Judge
JAMMU
10.10.2025
Javid Iqbal
