Signature requirements are directory where an issued admit card allows identity verification by alternative means.

The applicant, a Junior Accountant, applied for the post of Assistant Section Officer, Post Code 804/26, and was issued an e-admit card.

She was nevertheless refused entry to the examination on 25 September 2026 because her signature was considered unclear, blurred, or incomplete.

Her application form bore her thumb impression, and the examination schedule for the post was due to continue until 18 October 2026.

She filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking permission to sit a later shift using an alternative identity-verification method.

Whether the application-form declarations in clauses (d) and (e), relied on to exclude the applicant, were mandatory or directory in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the applicant should be permitted to participate in a later examination shift notwithstanding the stated defect in her signature, given that an e-admit card had been issued and her identity could be verified by other means.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the applicant’s service-related claim.

In Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Neeraj Kumar, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1160, the Delhi High Court treated a signature-related application requirement as directory where the candidate’s identity could be established from the available photographs.

In Kanishka v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1354, the Delhi High Court emphasised that, after issuing an admit card, an examination authority should not prevent a student from entering the examination hall in the circumstances considered there.

The Tribunal considered that the applicant had received an e-admit card, had supplied a thumb impression in her application, and could have her identity checked digitally through Aadhaar and by thumb impression at the examination centre.

It reasoned that any question of impersonation could be addressed if and when the applicant was selected, rather than used to prevent her from taking the examination at this stage.

Applying the cited decisions, the Tribunal treated the requirements as directory in the peculiar circumstances and considered alternative verification an appropriate safeguard.

The respondents were to provide sufficient notice and comply within one week; the direction was confined to the particular facts and was without prejudice to the parties’ rights and contentions in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.