CANDIDATURE BASED ON ADVERTISEMENT TERMS IS MANDATORY; NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC SIGNATURE INSTRUCTIONS JUSTIFIES REJECTION.

The Applicant applied for Group D posts under Centralized Employment Notification (CEN) No. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018

She cleared the Computer Based Test (CBT) on 15.11.2018 and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 01.04.2019

Following a direction from the Principal Bench in a previous round of litigation (O.A. No. 2557/2022), the Respondents issued a Speaking Order on 21.11.2023 rejecting her candidature

The rejection was based on the fact that the Applicant signed in capital letters on the RRB copy of the E-call letter during the CBT, violating Para 1.8 and Para 16.4 of the CEN, which required signatures in running handwriting

The Applicant challenged this, seeking a forensic examination (CFSL) of her thumbprints to prove her identity

1. Whether the rejection of the Applicant’s candidature for signing in capital letters, in violation of the specific instructions in the Employment Notification, was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the conditions regarding the mode of signature in the recruitment notification were mandatory or directory.

Recruitment processes must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement, as relaxation of conditions without specific reservation of power and due publicity violates Articles 14 and 16.

Competent authorities are entitled to reject applications for non-compliance with mandatory notification conditions [UOI & Ors. v. Sarwan Ram].

Upholding rejections based on the exact same violation of Condition No. 16.4 of CEN 02/2018 as per the precedent in Manoj Kumar Kumawat v. UOI & Ors.

Para 1.8 and Para 16.4 of the CEN No. 02/2018 explicitly warned candidates that signatures must be in running handwriting and that "Candidates writing the self-declaration para and Signing in CAPITAL letters will be rejected".

The Respondents demonstrated that the Applicant had used running handwriting during the PET but capital letters during the CBT, proving inconsistent signing styles.

Since the notification did not grant the Respondents power to relax these terms, allowing the Applicant’s plea would violate the mandate of equality by granting her an unauthorized exemption.

The forensic examination precedents (CFSL) cited by the Applicant did not override the mandatory nature of the specific "rejection clause" for capital letter signatures contained in this notification.

Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis regarding similar past orders of the Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches, the Tribunal concluded the Respondents acted within their rights.

There was no illegality or arbitrariness in the Speaking Order dated 21.11.2023; the Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.