IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6378 of 2011 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi. 3. The East Central Railway, Hazipur (Vaishali) through its General Manager. 4. The Divisional Rail Manager (DRM), Samastipur. 5. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer (SDPO), Samastipur. 6. The Deputy Chief Commercial Officer (DCCO), M.P.P., East Central Railway, Hazipur (Vaishali). 7. The Assistant Personal Officer, Samastipur................................................Petitioners/Respondents Versus 1. Rupesh Kumar, son of Shri Nawal Kishore Prasad, resident of Mohall-Dhrumpur, East of New B.Ed.College, Post Officer- Kashipur, P.S.-Samastipur (Muffasil), district- Samastipur………………………………….Respondent/Applicant. For the petitioners : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Adv. ----------- 2 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. There is no dispute that the respondent who was the applicant before the Central Administrative, Patna Bench, Patna was successful and had been recommended for a class-IV post. The only difficulty in his way arose on account of the report from the handwriting expert which showed that his roll number, date and serial number of the answer sheet in the first and formal column of question booklet no. 167477 appear to be in a different handwriting but in the following column in which he was required to write a few sentences in his own handwriting, admittedly the handwriting was of the applicant. The answers to the questions in 2 the answer sheets are also admittedly that of the applicant/respondent herein. Since the applicant was visually handicapped to a large extent, his explanation that he took help of the invigilator in getting some of the column of question book, filled up, has been accepted by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 9.8.2010 whereby O.A. No. 525/2009 has been allowed. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)