Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9467 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Kumar Vidy Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Short counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to submit his documents for verification before the respondent authorities.
In the writ petition, the petitioner has taken a stand that he had qualified the written examination held pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (Non-Technical) in different States and Union Territories-2016 and was called for document verification on 6.3.2018. On the said date, the marriage of the petitioner was to be solemnized and as such he could not go to the office for document verification. On the request made by the petitioner on an application moved in writing dated 23.2.2018, fresh date as 9.3.2018 was given by the respondents. But on 9.3.2018, when the petitioner reached the office for document verification, the staff of the respondent no. 3 refused to verify the documents and as such the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.
In the short counter affidavit filed today on behalf the respondent nos. 1 to 3, a stand has been taken that the petitioner had appeared for documents verification on 9.3.2018. He was required to fill up a sheet in his own handwriting and to produce the original documents filed alongwith the On-line application form for verification of his signature, thumb impression and handwriting.
The contention of the petitioner that the office of respondent no. 3 had refused to verify the documents submitted by him on 9.3.2018 is absolutely false.
It is then contended that while writing the specimen sheet on 9.3.2018, when the petitioner put his specimen signature, it was noted that there was difference in the specimen signature of the petitioner with that on the On-line application form. The petitioner was asked to give specimen thumb impression of his left hand, but he refused to do the same. The difference in the left hand thumb impressions in the two Admit Cards filled up by him for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (Non-Technical) Exam-2016 and Multi Tasking Staff (Non-Technical)(Tier-II) Exam-2016, was also pointed out during the course of verification, the petitioner was not able to explain.
This apart, a difference in the spelling of the name of the petitioner's mother mentioned in two admit cards was also pointed out.
As the petitioner could not answer the questions raised by the competent authority in the office of respondent no. 3, it was suspected that the petitioner was guilty of impersonation and his identity was doubtful. All the documents filled by the petitioner, therefore, have been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, for verification of signature and handwriting.
These submissions made in the counter affidavit are sought to be challenged in the rejoinder affidavit filed today. The petitioner submits that he is still ready for verification of documents and to explain the mismatch in the signature/handwriting and his thumb impression.
Dealing with this submission, having noted the facts evident from the record and having perused page '10' of the short counter affidavit, it is more than apparent that the petitioner was provided a chance to verify his testimonials for consideration of his claim against the post in question. He was accommodated by the competent authority for his non-appearance on 6.3.2018. Fresh date i.e. 9.3.2018 has been intimated to the petitioner. He had appeared on the said date before the competent authority and when he filled the specimen sheet for verification of his handwriting and thumb impression; discrepancy was pointed out by the officer concerned.
Further perusal of page '10' of the short counter affidavit indicates that the petitioner did not put his specimen thumb impression on the said document. The signature of the petitioner at page '10' of the counter affidavit and at pages '16', '17' and '19 i.e. admit cards and application form filled by the petitioner appears to be different from the naked eye.
This apart, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with wrong facts and had deliberately made an effort to misguide the Court.
In view of the above noted fact, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition.
The writ petition is a result of concealment of facts which the petitioner was duly bound to disclose.
For all the above noted reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Brijesh