SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing special appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.

(2.) Sanjeev Kumar is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 21.12016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11296 of 2016 (Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection and another) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of petitioner appellant wherein candidature of petitioner appellant has been cancelled by means of order dated 2016.

(3.) The factual situation that has led and brought the petitioner appellant to this Court is that petitioner appellant had applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of Officer Scale-I in the Regional Rural Bank. The selection in question was to take place on the basis of online written examination and interview. The online written examination was conducted by Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai and record in question reflects that procedure of the same is that a call letter has to be downloaded and filled and then uploaded back after putting signature along with other conditions such as photographs, ID proof, etc. at the time of online examination. The online examinations are held at a particular centres where the candidates would appear and would be made to sit in front of computer and to undertake the examination. Petitioner appellant, in his turn, appeared at BBD Northern India Institute of Technology, Sector 2, Akhilesh Das Nagar, Lucknow with Roll No. User ID 3581092577 and in lieu of his presence in the examination concerned, the petitioner appellant has proceeded to append his signature as well as thumb impression in presence of Invigilator and not only this Invigilator's signature has also been appended therein. Thereafter, it appears that petitioner appellant proceeded to make place for himself in the said examination and he was called for interview and at the point of time when he was called for interview, then apparently in the wisdom of authorities as there has been mismatch in signature and thumb impression, petitioner appellant was permitted provisionally to undertake the interview and on safer side report from Handwriting Expert has been called for and as in the report of Handwriting Expert there is mismatch in the signatures, accordingly, candidature of petitioner appellant has been turned down and such activity of the respondents impelled the petitioner appellant to be before this Court and learned Single Judge, in the present case, has concurred with the action, that has been so undertaken by the respondent no. 1, by passing order on 21.12.2016 and mentioning therein that "it is to be seen that from very beginning the petitioner was given information that in case of mismatch of any of the conditions, the candidature would be cancelled", then the action, that has been so undertaken, is strictly in consonance with the law and none of the rights of petitioner appellant has been infringed.