JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of his rejection in the process of selection for appointment as Constable (GD) in SSB Department solely on account of the purported violation of condition Nos. 22 & 23 as detailed by the respondent -Staff Selection Commission in its brochure incorporating the instructions to applicants for filling up the application forms for the post inter alia of Constable (GD) wherein it was provided that the applicants should sign in running hand and signatures in capital letters of English would not be accepted but entail summary rejection of the applications. The facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 05.02.2011 for recruitment on the post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB, the petitioner applied for consideration to be appointed as a Constable (GD) SSB. There is no dispute that the petitioner on the basis of his written examination and subsequent standard physical test was found meritorious and was to be appointed with SSB on the post applied for. However vide communication dated 17.04.2012, the Under Secretary (NR), Staff Selection Commissioner, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi informed the petitioner that his candidature was rejected only for the reason of his having signed the application form in English capital letters.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the reason for the rejection of the petitioner's candidature in spite of his merit based on his aggregate performance in the written examination and the standard physical test is wholly arbitrary. He submitted that the condition with regard to signing the application in running hand was wholly arbitrary and totally irrelevant to the determination of the suitability of a person to be appointed on the post of Constable (GD) SSB and the said condition was to be read down as only directory to save it from the vice of unconstitutionality. It has been submitted that even otherwise a bare look at the application form, Annexure -2 to the writ petition as submitted by the petitioner, would indicate that the signatures albeit in English capital letters are in running hand as there is no apparent space between the letters and in fact they are joint. For this reason counsel submits that the petitioner's application form did not also fall in the cross hair of condition No. 22 & 23 of the respondent's brochure detailing the instructions for filling up the application forms by prospective candidates. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Arif Vs. Union of India & Anr. [W.P. (C) No. 3409/2013, decided on 30.05.2013] and Bhagat Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 3583/2013, decided on 30.05.2013] has consistently held that a selected candidate for the post of Constable (GD) cannot be denied appointment if otherwise eligible for the appointment on the post only on the ground of his having signed the application form in English capital letters. The reason which found favour with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was that there is no prohibition in law, nor in fact can there be one, restraining a person from signing in capital letters for the reason that a signature is a mere trait which a person develops over a period of time. There is, to my mind, little to add to the view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court except to note that a signature can also over a period of time partake the character of habit unconsciously acted upon and it would be wholly arbitrarily and unjust to deny an otherwise eligible candidate appointment on the ground of the manner of his signature.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall treat the petitioners application form as a valid application and considered his entitlement to appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in SSB with reference to his merit position in the selection list determined on his performance in the written test, standard physical teat and other similar objective/relevant criteria. The respondents should also ensure that all requisite steps for this purpose are completed within six weeks from today under a formal communication by way of registered letter to the petitioner. In the event of the petitioner being appointed, he shall be entitled to all notional benefits. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.