HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT – A No. - 1850 of 2015 Pratyush Prakash Singh …..Petitioners(s) Versus State Bank Of India And 3 Ors …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., S.C., S.K. Kakkar, Satish Chaturvedi Judgment Reserved on 9.9.2025 Delivered on 15.9.2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk in the State Bank of India, being successful in a competitive examination conducted in the year 2012 and he was sent for training between 4.2.2013 to 16.2.2013 and thereafter he submitted his joining on 18.2.2013 before the General Manager, State Bank of India. 2 WRIT – A No. - 1850 of 2015 3. It is the case of petitioner that despite all formalities were completed, he was not allowed to join and no reason for that was communicated. 4. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.36583 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.7.2014. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Kakkar appearing for the respondent bank. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Clerk and after facing written examination and interview, the petitioner was selected and sent for training and after completion of training, petitioner was issued appointment letter on 4.2.2013, however, pursuant to the appointment letter, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties. Sri Kakkar states on instructions received that the selection is an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation and the matter is pending enquiry. However, if the petitioner approaches the authority concerned by making a representation, appropriate orders shall be passed. On the consent of the parties it is provided that the petitioner shall make a representation before the appropriate authority of the State Bank of India and it is expected that the concerned authority shall consider and decide by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.” 5. Even before the representation of petitioner was considered, his appointment was revoked/cancelled vide an order dated 16.9.2014, that he has procured appointment by impersonation. 6. Subsequently, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by a Speaking Order dated 15.10.2014 that on basis of a 3 WRIT – A No. - 1850 of 2015 report of handwriting expert it was found that it was a case of impersonation and fraud. 7. Orders dated 16.9.2014 and 15.10.2014 are challenged before this court by way of present writ petition. 8. Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was a regular appointee and has undergone training also, therefore, even that he was under probation still his appointment was revoked/cancelled on basis of allegations of impersonation on basis of a handwriting expert, a proper disciplinary proceedings ought to have been conducted, so that he could able to place his case. 9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments of this Court, which are referred as under: 1. Writ-A No.56499 of 2011; Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India And Others. 2. Special Appeal No.1088 of 2014; State Bank of India Cor. Central Tulsiani And 3 Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar And Anr. 3. Writ-A No.58077 of 2015; Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India & 3 Others. 4. Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018; Vijay Pal And 22 Others Vs. Union of India And 3 Others. 5. Writ-A No. 8534 of 2018; Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India And Others. 6. Writ-A No.2813 of 2017; Ran Vijay Singh Vs. Union of India. 7. Special Appeal No. 1045 Of 2018; Union of India And Others Vs. Ran Vijay Singh And Others. 10. Per contra, Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner’s appointment letter has a condition that in the event of any information, declaration, certificates/testimonials being found incorrect/false or he has 4 WRIT – A No. - 1850 of 2015 concealed or suppressed any material facts, his appointment shall be deemed invalid abinitio, and since it was a case of appointment by misrepresentation, therefore, no proper inquiry was required to be conducted. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it would be clear from the Report of the Handwriting Expert that signatures and thumb impression were forged and it was a case of impersonation, and this Court may not go into the veracity of handwriting expert report and he placed reliance on the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India Lucknow & Anr, Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:LKO45409. 12. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 13. An allegation of procurement of appointment by impersonation is very serious and it could be a sole ground to cancel the appointment. However, Court finds that respondents’ case was entirely based on a Report of a Handwriting Expert that signature and thumb impression on the admit card and thumb impression and signature in written examination and in interview were not of one person, therefore, order of cancellation of appointment was passed. 14. Court is not an expert and only on basis of rival arguments, conclusion of handwriting expert report could not be rejected. However, following two factors would still be in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents:- a) Respondents despite a specific order of this Court have not placed records before this Court so that it could be perused. b) An ex-parte proceedings has caused prejudice to the petitioner since he was not able to place his case and that if the records are provided, he would have submitted an expert report. 5 WRIT – A No. - 1850 of 2015 c) Court has also perused the signatures of petitioner on the documents and from naked eye not much dissimilarity was visible. d) The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case, therefore, impugned order dated 16.9.2014 and speaking order dated 15.10.2014 are set-aside and this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that respondents will allow the petitioner to join his service within two weeks and w.e.f. the date of joining only, he will be considered to be in service. This order will not come in the way if the respondents chooses to initiate fresh inquiry in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner to place his case. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) September 15, 2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad