HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13290 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Laloo Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sakshi Mehrotra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. At the very outset, Ms. Sakshi Mehrotra, learned Advocate submits that petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity to contest CFSL report before passing of the order impugned by the competent authority and hence matter stands covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others v. Union of India and others in Writ - A No.- 2813 of 2017 and connected matters, decided on 16th April, 2018, in which vide paragraph 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 the Court has held thus: "26. The respondents were expected to confront the petitioners with material relied upon against them. A show cause containing such materials was required to have been issued, particularly when petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any other exam conducted by Commission for three years. The notice dated 5.8.2015 cannot be construed as a show cause notice. It only called upon the petitioners to give their specimen signatures, handwriting and thumb impression in view of Commission's opinion that they do not match. After the CFSL report was received neither the petitioners were put to any notice, nor the content of report was made known to them. 27. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their officers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kiran Rani, Laloo Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Archit Mehrotra, A.S.G.I. Suman Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic. 28. Respondents cannot find support for their action on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (supra), inasmuch as compassionate appointment was claimed by the respondent Dhirjo Kumar Sengar on the basis of his adoption. The adoption itself was not established. In such circumstances, it was observed that facts of the case clearly fell in the well recognized exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem. The present case also does not fall in category of cases of mass-copying, where exclusion of principles of natural justice stands judicially recognized. As a matter of fact, no adverse report was ever received at the time of examination and it is at a subsequent point of time that allegation of impersonation is made and held to be proved only upon opinion of handwriting expert. The judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon by the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 2052. This judgment relates to land acquisition proceedings and has no relevance for present purposes. 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. 30. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to verify identity of petitioners upon material and evidence admissible in law by following the principles of natural justice. WRIA No. 13290 of 2025 2 The required exercise be undertaken preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, as petitioners have already lost sufficient time. Based upon such consideration, the respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter relating to grant of appointment to the petitioners." 3. In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 2nd December, 2024 cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner passed by the respondent No.- 3 is hereby quashed. 4. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.- 3 to decide afresh in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Vijay Singh (supra). September 16, 2025 Atmesh WRIA No. 13290 of 2025 3 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad