Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 30 September, 2011
Article 227 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Radhe Shyam vs Union Of India And Others on 16 January, 2013
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 OF 2012                         1


                         CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 of 2012

                         DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 16, 2013

Radhe Shyam                                     .......Petitioner


Union of India and others                       .......Respondents


Present:   Mr.HN Khanduja, Advocate for the petitioner.

           Mr.Kailash Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.



The petitioner had submitted his application for consideration for appointment to the post of Constable in Assam Rifles/BSF/CRPF/CISF/ITBP/SSB. Such application had been submitted 'on line'. The petitioner had been issued a roll number for appearing in a Physical Standard Test. Thereafter, on 14.2.2012, the petitioner had even been issued a letter informing him that he had qualified the requisite Physical Standard Test. The petitioner thereafter had even been permitted to appear in the written test which was conducted on 22.4.2012. Appended along with the writ petition is a communication at Annexure P7 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 OF 2012 2 which does not bear a date, in terms of which the petitioner had been informed that he had even qualified the written test and had been called upon to appear in the medical examination. Accordingly, the petitioner had been directed to appear before the duly constituted Board of Doctors for medical examination to be conducted on 10.7.2012 at Hissar.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in terms of raising a grievance that it was at such belated stage that the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected on the basis of an endorsement on his application form, Annexure P8, which read in the following terms:

"Form rejected due to capital letter signature."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has all through been signing in capital english letters and as such, the same cannot be a ground to reject his candidature. It has further been argued that the rejection, if at all, could have been at the very outset and not after the petitioner had duly qualified the Physical Standard Test as also the written test. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature be held to be bad in law and directions be issued to the respondent-authorities to conduct the medical examination so as to facilitate his appointment to the post in question.

4. Upon notice of motion having been issued, a written statement on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 has been filed. The categoric stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that in the Notice of Examination which was published in the Employment CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 OF 2012 3 News/Rozgar Samachar dated 3.12.2011/9.12.2011, the candidates had been called upon to put the signatures in running hand only while filling up the application forms. It has further been stated that under the column "IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES", it had been clearly recited that in view of the anticipated large number of applicants, the scrutiny of the eligibility conditions and other aspects would be undertaken only after the Physical Standard Test as also the written examination and as such, the candidature was being accepted only on a provisional basis. It has been pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had not adhered to the specific and categoric instructions and had signed in capital letters in both the pages of the application form. Learned counsel for the respondents would pray that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. An identical issue came up for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and another, 2012(3) SCT 108 wherein even the factual matrix was identical and it had been held in the following terms:

"This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent No.1 to conduct the medical examination test of the petitioner and consider him for the final selection for the post of Constables.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had responded to the advertisement inviting applications CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 OF 2012 4 for the posts of Constables in CISF, CRPF, BSF & SSB in the year 2011. The applications were to be filled in online. The petitioner considering himself to be qualified for it, applied for the same and was called for the physical efficiency test and physical standard test which he cleared and he was subsequently called for written examination which was scheduled for 15.6.2011 and in this test also, he was declared qualified. As per the process, he was then invited to undergo medical examination test which was to be conducted on 22.7.2011 at 7 a.m. He appeared along with complete particulars and filled up the requisite form, but his candidature has now been rejected only on the ground that in the form submitted by him, instead of appending his signatures in the column which was meant for it, he wrote his name in capital letters.

3 to 8. xxxxxxxxxxxx

9. I have considered the assertions made by the petitioner, as also the counter assertions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is indeed an unfortunate case where the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that he had mentioned his name in capital letters instead of appending his signatures against the column which warranted such an information. The petition does not level any allegation of unfair selection and in view of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 OF 2012 5 this, the action of the respondents be construed to be in conformity with the rules and instructions stipulated in the advertisement.

10. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that in a public appointment, the response to such an advertisement is often overwhelming and a number of people who respond, is always far in excess of the advertised posts which in turn would lead to a cumbersome selection process. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is not an isolated case of facing such a situation, but there are other people also whose candidature has been cancelled on the ground that their forms were not in conformity with the instructions.

11. In view of this, accepting the plea of the petitioner would be inviting a catasphoric situation where the entire selection process of the persons who have participated, would be put to a risk.

12. There is no legal infirmity pointed out in the action of the respondents and even though the demands of equity could have prevailed upon the Court, but noticing the fact that it would result in opening a pandora's-box which may jeopardize the entire selection process, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted.


6. The claim of the petitioner as raised in the instant writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13265 OF 2012 6 petition is clearly covered against him in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). For the same very reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent-authorities in rejecting the candidature of the present petitioner on the ground that he had signed in capital letters instead of appending his signatures in running hand.

7. No merit. Dismissed.

                                    ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
January 16, 2013                               JUDGE

Note:     Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No