Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13543 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vikky Kumar Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary, Home And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Devesh Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by respondent no.7-The Commandant 8th Bn. P.A.C., Bareilly, District Bareilly by which, his candidature as P.A.C. Constable has been cancelled on the ground that the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner were mismatched.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the respondents before passing the impugned order, thus, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2018 (6) ADJ 369.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by Commandant, 23rd Bn PAC Moradabad which shows that appointment of the petitioner is subject to the verification of his signature and thumb impression. Once the signature and thumb impression of the candidate was found mismatched, notice or opportunity of hearing is not required to him.
Be that as it may, in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) this Court held that the authorities are supposed to follow the principles of natural justice. Relevant paragraph no.29 of the judgment is reproduced herein as under:
"29. Although the report of Government Laboratory and opinion of its experts would be entitled to weight, particularly when no bias or mala fide is alleged, yet, being in the nature of opinion, it cannot conclusively establish impersonation on part of the petitioners. The respondents' action is otherwise not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that action of respondents in cancelling petitioners' provisional selection, and debarring them from appearing in any exam conducted by the Commission for three years, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Orders impugned dated 27.10.2016 and 14.12.2016, accordingly, stands quashed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 66 of the writ petition has alleged that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Though, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently tried to defend the order passed by the authority but could not demonstrate from the order that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the authority before cancelling his appointment.
In view of aforesaid facts, the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by respondent no.7 is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, quashed with liberty to respondent no.7 to pass afresh order in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed with observations made above.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Mohit