IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4570 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Adv. Mr. Omkar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Navjot Yashu, Adv. -------------- 2. 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant to Advertisement No. 54 of 1998 for a Class-III post. He cleared the preliminary examination on 9.9.2001, and the main examination on 7.9.2002. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) recommended his name by letter No. 1050 dated 16.1.2003 for appointment in the District of Sheikhpura. He appeared before the authorities. Ultimately he not only lost the opportunity for the job on 24.12.2004 but has also been faced with the ignominy of a police case. The order states that there was a discrepancy in his handwriting between that in the application form submitted to the Commission and the Bio-data submitted before the authorities. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner gave his application to the Commission in 2 1998 nearly 6 years ago. Minor variation in the handwriting, keeping in mind normal human behaviour and conduct, cannot be ignored. There is no finding of such major differences in the handwriting so as to lead to a prima facie conclusion that they were two independent individuals. Suspicion cannot replace proof. In any event, the petitioner had to be confronted with the materials and was to be given an opportunity to explain. The second ground is that in his application before the Commission he had mentioned his father’s name as Vrij Mohan Singh where as on the date that he has appeared before the authorities he wrote his father’s name as Braj Mohan Singh. There is no dispute with regard to his parentage and his mother name. In the column for his qualification, in the application submitted to the Commission he had written matriculation and before the authorities Matric. Common sense states that the two are only one qualification. The application to the Commission mentioned a mole to the right hand and the left hand. Before the authorities he mentioned a mole in the right palm. Whether he has a mole in the right 3 or left hand or palm is hardly relevant. What is relevant is whether he had a mole at either place. The order is silent on this aspect. The counter affidavit does not improve upon the order. The photograph on the application form was stapled instead of being pasted with a polarized photograph which cannot be pasted suggesting replacement of the photograph. The official seal had therefore slipped below. There is no allegation of impersonation during the examination and the official seal is also acknowledged. The recitals are mere conjectures and surmises. The Court is left with the uncanny feeling that for some ulterior reasons the respondents appeared to be fishing for one ground or the other to justify denial of appointment. But there is another aspect of the matter. The impugned order is dated 24.12.2004 and the writ petition has been filed on 9.4.2009. There is no explanation in the writ application for this delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged from the pleadings in Paragraph-35 that vacancies are still available. The Court holds that the order dated 24.12.2004 is inconclusive and speculative in 4 nature. It does not justify denial of appointment. But due to the passage of time, the Court refrains from giving or making any positive order or directions for appointment except for observing after setting aside that order, that if vacancies are available, the respondents may consider the claim of the petitioner. In the event that the petitioner is granted appointment, the question of seniority has necessarily to be prospective in nature only as he must bear part of the responsibility for moving the Court belatedly also. Let such consideration be done and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)