### Benefit of Doubt Accorded to Candidate Where CFSL Confirms Signatures Despite Discrepancy in Handwriting and Thumb Impressions

The respondent applied for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) through an examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission

After clearing three tiers of examinations and a medical test, he was issued an offer of appointment on June 19, 2020. However, the petitioners cancelled his candidature on September 16, 2020, alleging impersonation during the Tier-1 examination

The allegation was based on a perceived mismatch in handwriting and signatures on the admit cards. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), via order dated May 22, 2024, directed a comparison of thumb impressions after initial CFSL reports on handwriting were inconclusive or contradictory

A subsequent CFSL report dated January 31, 2025, confirmed that thumb impressions for Tier-2 and Tier-3 matched the respondent, but the Tier-1 impression was too smudged for comparison

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence of impersonation during the Tier-1 examination to justify the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature

2. Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of doubt given the conflicting and indeterminate expert reports from the CFSL

The court primarily applied the principle of "benefit of doubt" in administrative service matters where expert evidence is inconclusive

The court acknowledged the precedent in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, which establishes that while a court can compare handwritings under appropriate circumstances, it should generally rely on expert bodies like the CFSL when such reports are available

The court also exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the legality of the selection process

The court evaluated three sets of expert evidence. First, regarding thumb impressions, the CFSL reported that while Tier-2 and Tier-3 impressions matched the respondent (QT-1, QT-2, QT-4), the Tier-1 impression (QT-3) was blurred/smudged, rendering it indeterminate

Second, regarding handwriting (Q12), the CFSL produced contradictory results: the 2021 report was indeterminate, while the 2022 report was adverse to the respondent

Third, regarding signatures (Q11) on the Tier-1 admit card, the CFSL consistently opined in both the 2021 and 2022 reports that the signatures tallied with the respondent’s specimens

The court reasoned that since the signature (Q11) and the handwriting (Q12) were on the same Tier-1 admit card, the conclusive match of the signature (Q11) outweighed the indeterminate or adverse reports on handwriting and thumb impressions

Given the peculiar facts and the conflicting nature of the other reports, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the respondent's candidature under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India