High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2022 and 01.10.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 cancelling the selection and appointment on the ground of they being guilty of impersonation in the written examination held.

3. It is contended that the aforesaid decision has come to be taken upon the report submitted by a handwriting expert regarding thumb impression taken at the time of appointment of the petitioners as that was found different from the one taken in the examination hall. It is thus submitted that before annulling the selection and appointment of the petitioners, petitioners ought to have been supplied with the report of the handwriting expert and ought to have been given an opportunity to offer their explanation and contest the report. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh and others v. Union of India and others 2018 lawsuit Allahabad 740. It is contended further that the said judgment has come to be affirmed by the judgment has come to be affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Pal and others v. Union of India and others 2023 ADJ 367 which has come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court as the SLP against the same judgment being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24965 of 2023 has come to be dismissed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order but could not dispute the legal proposition as laid down by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra) in such matters and the fact that before annulling the appointment of the petitioners they were not supplied with the copy of the CFSL report, inasmuch as petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing to offer their explanation.

5. I have gone through the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of RanVijay Singh and I find that vide paragraph 27, 28, 29 and 30 the Coordinate Bench had made reference to the expert report that was relied upon in the said case and then made certain observations regarding acceptance of the report without affording any opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned and hence remanded the matter. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 are reproduced hereunder: "27. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their ofÏcers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic.

28. Respondents cannot find support for their action on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (supra), inasmuch as compassionate appointment was claimed by the respondent Dhirjo Kumar Sengar on the basis of his adoption. The adoption itself was not established. In such circumstances, it was observed that facts of the case clearly fell in the well recognized exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem. The present case also does not fall in category of cases of mass-copying, where exclusion of principles of natural justice stands judicially recognized. As a matter of fact, no adverse report was ever received at the time of examination and it is at a subsequent point of time that allegation of impersonation is made and held to be proved only upon opinion of handwriting expert. The judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon by the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 2052. This judgment relates to land acquisition proceedings and has no relevance for present purposes.

29. Although the report of Government Laboratory and opinion of its experts would be entitled to weight, particularly when no bias or mala fide is alleged, yet, being in the nature of opinion, it cannot conclusively establish impersonation on part of the petitioners. The respondents' action is otherwise not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that action of respondents in cancelling petitioners' provisional selection, and debarring them from appearing in any exam conducted by the Commission for three years, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Orders impugned dated 27.10.2016 and 14.12.2016, accordingly, stands quashed.

30. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to verify identity of petitioners upon material and evidence admissible in law by following the principles of natural justice. The required exercise be undertaken preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, as petitioners have already lost sufÏcient time. Based upon such consideration, the respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter relating to grant of appointment to the petitioners. "

6. In view of the above this petition deserves to be allowed for remitting the matter for decision afresh.

7. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 03.11.2022 and 01.10.2021 are hereby quashed remitting the matter to the competent authority to decide afresh in the light of the observations made in the case of Ranvijay. Appropriate decision shall be taken by the authority in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra) as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months of the presentation of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2022 and 01.10.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 cancelling the selection and appointment on the ground of they being guilty of impersonation in the written examination held.

3. It is contended that the aforesaid decision has come to be taken upon the report submitted by a handwriting expert regarding thumb impression taken at the time of appointment of the petitioners as that was found different from the one taken in the examination hall. It is thus submitted that before annulling the selection and appointment of the petitioners, petitioners ought to have been supplied with the report of the handwriting expert and ought to have been given an opportunity to offer their explanation and contest the report. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the petitioners stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh and others v. Union of India and others 2018 lawsuit Allahabad 740. It is contended further that the said judgment has come to be affirmed by the judgment has come to be affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Pal and others v. Union of India and others 2023 ADJ 367 which has come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court as the SLP against the same judgment being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24965 of 2023 has come to be dismissed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order but could not dispute the legal proposition as laid down by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra) in such matters and the fact that before annulling the appointment of the petitioners they were not supplied with the copy of the CFSL report, inasmuch as petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing to offer their explanation.

5. I have gone through the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of RanVijay Singh and I find that vide paragraph 27, 28, 29 and 30 the Coordinate Bench had made reference to the expert report that was relied upon in the said case and then made certain observations regarding acceptance of the report without affording any opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned and hence remanded the matter. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 are reproduced hereunder: "27. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their ofÏcers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic.

28. Respondents cannot find support for their action on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (supra), inasmuch as compassionate appointment was claimed by the respondent Dhirjo Kumar Sengar on the basis of his adoption. The adoption itself was not established. In such circumstances, it was observed that facts of the case clearly fell in the well recognized exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem. The present case also does not fall in category of cases of mass-copying, where exclusion of principles of natural justice stands judicially recognized. As a matter of fact, no adverse report was ever received at the time of examination and it is at a subsequent point of time that allegation of impersonation is made and held to be proved only upon opinion of handwriting expert. The judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon by the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 2052. This judgment relates to land acquisition proceedings and has no relevance for present purposes.

29. Although the report of Government Laboratory and opinion of its experts would be entitled to weight, particularly when no bias or mala fide is alleged, yet, being in the nature of opinion, it cannot conclusively establish impersonation on part of the petitioners. The respondents' action is otherwise not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that action of respondents in cancelling petitioners' provisional selection, and debarring them from appearing in any exam conducted by the Commission for three years, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Orders impugned dated 27.10.2016 and 14.12.2016, accordingly, stands quashed.

30. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to verify identity of petitioners upon material and evidence admissible in law by following the principles of natural justice. The required exercise be undertaken preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, as petitioners have already lost sufÏcient time. Based upon such consideration, the respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter relating to grant of appointment to the petitioners. "

6. In view of the above this petition deserves to be allowed for remitting the matter for decision afresh.

7. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 03.11.2022 and 01.10.2021 are hereby quashed remitting the matter to the competent authority to decide afresh in the light of the observations made in the case of Ranvijay. Appropriate decision shall be taken by the authority in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra) as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months of the presentation of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Nadeem NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad