Manish Yadav vs Railway Recruitment Control Board (Rrcb) & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010077732025
+ W.P.(C) 2060/2025
MANISH YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Dr.
Amarendra Pratap Yadav and Mr. Rahul
Yadav, Advs.
versus
RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CONTROL BOARD (RRCB) &
ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, SPC
along with Ms. Lavanya Kaushik, Mr. Vikas
CLA, NRHU, Arjun, WLI/RRC A
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 02.11.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Consequent to Centralised Employment Notice No. 02/2018
dated 10 February 2018, the petitioner appeared for a Level 1 post in
the Railways on 6 December 2018.
2. The final result of examinations was declared on 10 March
2019. The petitioner cleared the examination. He was called for the
Physical Efficiency Test on 28 March 2019 which, too, he cleared. His
documents were verified. However, his result was not declared on the
ground that there was mismatch between the handwriting and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2060/2025 Page 1 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:45:50
signature contained in the original admit card issued to the petitioner
and the admit card issued to him at the time of PET and document
verification. We may note that the signature and thumb impression of
the petitioner were taken at time of issuance of the original admit card
as well as the admit card preceding the document verification and that,
in the admit card preceding the PET, too, the petitioner’s signature
was taken, though there was no thumb impression.
3. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for petitioner, also points out that,
at each stage, videography also took place, so that there could be no
reasonable basis to allege impersonation of the petitioner at any stage.
4. On the ground that the Government Examiner for Question
1
Documents returned a report that there was a mismatch of signature
and handwriting between the original admit card and the admit cards
proceeding the PET and DV, the petitioner’s candidature was
cancelled.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Central
2
Administration Tribunal by way of OA 273/2022.
6. By judgment dated 31 January 2025, the Tribunal has dismissed
the OA, challenging which the petitioner is before us in the present
writ petition.
7. We have heard Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner
1
“GEQD” hereinafter
2
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2060/2025 Page 2 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:45:50
and Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, learned SPC for the Railways.
8. Mr. Yadav has drawn our attention to the judgment of the
3
Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh , in which
it was held as under:
“But the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting
expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in
general, are unreliable witnesses – the equality of credibility or
incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other
witnesses – but because all human judgment is fallible and an
expert max" go wrong because of some defect of observation,
some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more
developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an
incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed
and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has
attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is
practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of
identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is.
therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of
a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon
substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may
be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert
to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an
inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the
acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and
not decides. His duty is to furnish the Judge with the necessary
scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to
enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the
application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.”
9. He has also cited the judgement of High Court of Allahabad in
4
Ravi Kumar Yadav v. Union of India which relied on the decision in
Murari Lal .
10. It is a settled principle of evidence that, while the comparison of
handwriting remains an inexact science, considerably greater degree
3
1980 1 SCC 704
4
Writ Appeal 8534/2018
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2060/2025 Page 3 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:45:50
of certainty attaches ascertainment of identity based on comparison of
thumb impressions as, while handwriting may change over a period of
time, thumb impressions remain the same.
11. We fail to understand why, when the petitioner’s thumb
impressions were taken at the stage of original admit card as well as at
the stage of document verification, the thumb impressions were not
sent for comparison and, instead, handwritings were sent for
comparison.
12. Mr. Uma Prasuna has also handed over, across the Bar, the
original records of the case, from which it becomes evident that, even
in respect of handwriting, the report of the forensic expert of the MHA
is completely unreasoned. No analysis, on the basis of which the
forensic examiner came to the conclusion that the person who had
signed and written on the admit card was not the person who had
signed and written on the DV and PET admit cards, is forthcoming.
13. For all we know, the report may merely be the ipse dixit of the
expert.
14. The Tribunal has, unfortunately, not addressed the matter with
the importance which it deserves. The Tribunal has merely rejected
the petitioner’s argument that biometrics were taken at every stage,
and holds that biometrics could not be the basis for a determination
that the person who underwent the DV or the PET was the same as the
person who had signed the original admit card.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2060/2025 Page 4 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:45:50
15. To that extent, the reasoning of the Tribunal may be correct.
However, merely on the basis of an unreasoned report of the GEQD,
which was never even put to the petitioner, so that he could provide an
explanation in that regard or produce any evidence to the contrary, we
are of the opinion that the decision to cancel the petitioner’s
candidature was hasty and unjustified, especially as the respondent
does not dispute the fact that the proceedings were videographed, so
that it would have been possible even on that basis to ascertain the
identify of the person who had underwent the PET and DV.
16. We cannot, therefore, sustain the decision of the Tribunal or the
decision of the respondent to cancel the petitioner’s candidature solely
on the basis of the report of the forensic examiner in the office of the
GEQD, purportedly based on the comparison of handwriting.
17. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, accordingly, quashed
and set aside. In case there is no other objection apropos the
petitioner, we direct his candidature be further processed with
consequential steps taken in accordance with law.
18. However, we reserve liberty with the respondent to forward the
original admit card and the original DV admit card, which bear the
petitioner’s thumb impersonation, for comparison to the GEQD.
19. We direct the GEQD to provide its opinion with respect to the
thumb impressions, specifically as to whether they belong to the said
person within a period of four weeks from today. In case the report is
adverse to the petitioner, a copy thereof shall be provided to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2060/2025 Page 5 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:45:50
petitioner.
20. The candidature and appointment of the petitioner would
remain subject to the outcome of the report from GEQD regarding
thumb impressions.
21. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent,
with no orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 2, 2026
dsn
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2060/2025 Page 6 of 6
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:45:50