Candidature cancellation based solely on expert handwriting mismatch without corroborative evidence is unsustainable.

The applicant, Umesh Kumar, applied for a Group ‘D’ post under Employment Notice No. 01/2007 issued by the respondents.

He successfully cleared the physical efficiency test on 25.04.2011, the written examination on 16.10.2011, and the medical examination after document verification.

However, his name was not included in the final select list.

Upon his representation, respondent No. 3 informed him via order dated 15.05.2013 that his candidature was rejected due to irregularities found in his application form, specifically a mismatch in handwriting.

Aggrieved by this, the applicant filed the present Original Application.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.05.2013, rejecting the applicant's candidature solely on the basis of a handwriting mismatch without corroborative evidence, should be quashed.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to make selection and appointment of the applicant to the post of Group D in pursuance of Employment Notice No. 01/2007.

The court primarily applied the legal principle established in *Vijay Pal and others Vs. Union of India and others* [2023 (6) ADJ 367 (DB)], affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which held that an expert opinion regarding mismatch of thumb impression/handwriting, if not supported by any other corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for cancelling a candidate's candidature.

The court also considered the principle outlined in *Geo Miller Company Private Limited Vs. Up Jal Nigam and others* [2024 SCC Online All 1676], stating that when co-equal benches face conflicting judgments, the earlier judgment governs unless overturned or referred to a larger bench.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's candidature was cancelled solely based on an expert opinion about an irregularity in handwriting, without any supporting corroborative evidence.

The respondents’ counsel argued that *Guddu Kumar Purbey* (supra), which dismissed a similar writ petition and was decided earlier than *Vijay Pal* (supra), should be binding.

However, the Tribunal distinguished *Guddu Kumar Purbey* (supra) by noting that its facts were different, involving a smudged thumb impression and differing handwriting, and its underlying opinion was inconclusive.

In contrast, the Tribunal held that the facts of the present case were similar to *Vijay Pal* (supra), where the Hon'ble High Court explicitly ruled that an expert opinion on mismatch without corroborative evidence is insufficient to cancel a candidature, especially when no evidence suggests the applicant did not appear in the examination.

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant had cleared all stages of the examination and the respondents collected no evidence to prove unoriginal participation.

Therefore, the ratio of *Vijay Pal* (supra) was deemed fully applicable.

The impugned order dated 15.05.2013 was quashed and set aside.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to grant appointment to the applicant against advertisement no. 1/2007 within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.