Handwriting Mismatch in Recruitment Exams Constitutes Impersonation Justifying Permanent Debarment and Cancellation of Candidature

The applicant applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and Technician under Advertisement No. CEN No. 01/2018

He qualified for Stage-I and Stage-II Computer Based Tests (CBT). During the document verification process on August 22, 2019, the authorities noticed a discrepancy in the applicant's handwriting sample compared to the declaration written on the CBT-2 e-call letter

The applicant claimed a technical glitch prevented him from writing the full declaration himself during the exam

The respondents referred the documents to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), who confirmed that the handwritings belonged to different persons

Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued, and a final order dated May 18, 2020, was passed cancelling his candidature and debarring him from all Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) examinations for life

1. Whether the cancellation of candidature and lifetime debarment was justified based on the expert opinion regarding handwriting discrepancy

2. Whether the applicant's plea of technical glitch during the CBT-2 examination was valid and sufficient to override the findings of impersonation

The court applied Clause 15.2 and 15.4 of the Employment Notification (CEN No. 01/2018), which mandates that candidates must write a self-declaration in their own running handwriting in the presence of an invigilator, failing which their candidature is liable for cancellation

The court further relied on Railway Board Letter No. E(RRB)/2001/25/1 regarding disciplinary actions for malpractices

The legal principle of natural justice was applied through the issuance of a show-cause notice and consideration of the applicant's reply prior to passing the final order

The Tribunal found that the recruitment instructions specifically required handwritten declarations as a safeguard against impersonation

The GEQD’s expert opinion categorically established that the person who appeared for the document verification was not the same person who had written the declaration on the CBT-2 e-call letter

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's defense of a "technical glitch" at the computer terminal, noting that the applicant failed to report this alleged issue to the invigilator at the time of the exam or immediately thereafter; rather, it was raised as an afterthought following the detection of the handwriting mismatch

The discrepancies in handwriting and the expert report provided a strong factual basis for the respondents' conclusion regarding impersonation and malpractice

The Original Application was dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the applicant's candidature and his lifetime debarment from RRB/RRC examinations. No order as to costs was made