Ravi Kumar Meena vs Staff Selection Commission

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The respondents herein issued an advertisement for selection of candidates for the post of Multi Tasking (non technical) Staff (for short MTS) in the year 2019. The selection process involved tests at two levels, i.e. Tier-1 and Tier-II, followed by the verification of records. The applicant was one of the candidates and he was assigned Roll No.2201156984. At the stage of selection, his candidature was rejected on the ground that his Tier-II answer script was without his signature. A communication to this effect was issued to the applicant. This OA is filed challenging the communication issued by the respondents.

The applicant contends that in the first page of the answer script, there is a provision of filling up the roll number, putting signature and the thumb impression in the relevant columns; and though he has filled the roll number and put the thumb impression in the relevant column, he has forgotten to put the signature in the anxiety. He contends that as long as the thumb impression is present on the answer script, there should not be any difficulty for identification. It is also his case that the admit card issued to him contained his photograph, roll number and thumb impression and only on being satisfied about the identity, the concerned examiner permitted him to take the examination. Reliance is placed upon several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other Courts.

We heard Shri Ankur Chhibber with Shri Harkesh Parashar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.Neetu Mishra for Shri K. M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.

The applicant took part in Tier-I and Tier-II examinations conducted for selection to the post of MTS. In the column occurring above the place provided for roll number and signature, the following note is added:-

"Question Paper-cum-Answer Books not bearing Candidate's Roll No., Signature and Left-hand Thumb Impression, wherever required, will not be evaluated and/such candidates shall be awarded 'Zero' marks."

It is evident that the applicant is required to write the roll number, put his signature and thereafter put the thumb impression. Each entry has its own definite purpose to serve. The insistence of signature of the candidate is for the purpose of comparing the same with the one, on the application form. In these days of rampant impersonation, the insistence in this behalf, becomes more relevant.

It is not in dispute that the applicant did not put his signature on the answer script at all. This was a serious lapse, and it was clearly mentioned that the failure to put signature will entail in rejection of evaluation. The respondents noticed the same and did not evaluate the answer script of the applicant.

From the judgments cited before us, we find that the issue was mostly about the form of signature and not the one, of total absence of signature. Though the instructions to the candidates were to the effect that the signature must not be in capital letters, the petitioners therein put their signatures in capital letters. When their candidature was rejected, they approached the Courts. It was held that once the signature, be it in capital letters, or in other form, is available for comparison with the one, on the application form, the purpose is served. It was also observed that the prohibition as to the signature in capital letters is prohibitory and not mandatory in nature. We are not informed of any judgment, in which the total absence of signature was condoned and the candidature was directed to be considered.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.