Civil Writ Petition No. 17544 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17544 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.7.2009 Vikash ...petitioner Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission ...respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.N. Pilania, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 1983 posts for Physical Training Instructors (for short PTI). The petitioner being eligible submitted his application in response to this advertisement. The respondent-Commission issued Roll No. 21318 for the petitioner to appear in the written test which was scheduled to be held on 21.1.2007. Subsequently, however, the written test was not conducted and Commission had decided to hold the interviews for the purpose of selection. The case of the petitioner, however, was rejected and intimation in this regard was given to him through a letter dated 13.8.2008. His application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not signed the same. Contesting this stand of the respondent, the petitioner approached the office of respondent on 27.8.2008 and requested them to show him his application. The petitioner had a belief that if he had submitted the unsigned application he would not have been issued roll number for appearing Civil Writ Petition No. 17544 of 2008 2 in the written test. The petitioner avers that his application was not shown to him even on repeated request. The petitioner was, however, apprised that even if it is found that his application was signed still he would not be eligible for being called for interview as he was having B.P.Ed qualification whereas the required qualification is C.P.Ed. The petitioner would dispute this fact and would say that the candidates with D.P.Ed qualification have been interviewed. The petitioner thus pleads that he has been denied the right of consideration wrongly. He has accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the action of the respondent. In the written statement filed by the respondents the stated taken is that the application of the petitioner was rejected as application form was not signed. Reference is also made to certain judgment to say that such an application cannot be considered. The State counsel as such, was asked to produce the application form for perusal as it would have clinched the issue if the petitioner had signed the same or not. On request made by the State counsel, case was adjourned to be taken up after lunch to enable the counsel to obtain and produce the application form submitted by the petitioner. After lunch break, the application form submitted by the petitioner is produced before the Court. The place meant for endorsing signatures on the form is found torn and that torn portion of the application form is missing. To be fair to the State counsel, he has referred to some Rubber stamp affixed at two places of the application reading “UNSIGNED”. The rubber stamp reading 'REJECTED' with red colour is also endorsed on the face of the Civil Writ Petition No. 17544 of 2008 3 application. Can such an application be taken to be one which was not singed by the petitioner? Since the application was in the custody of the respondent-Board, they were to ensure its safe preservation. It is for them to explain as to how that part of the application is found torn or missing where the petitioner had put his signatures. There is no explanation forthcoming as to how and under what circumstances this particular place containing signatures of the petitioner is found torn and is missing. The manner in which the application is found torn would apparently indicate that it is not a natural tearing but appears to be with design to remove that portion where the signatures was or was not endorsed. In any event, it is for the respondent to make good their case that they had received the application that was unsigned. The record was in the custody of the respondents. They would be responsible for the safe custody. They have now to explain this tearing and that the application was unsigned. There is a doubt if this application was submitted unsigned or it is made to look so. The respondents have not been able to remove the doubt that the application submitted by the petitioner was unsigned. They thus have not been able to show that the application received by them was unsigned. In view of these circumstances, benefit must go to the petitioner and it is to be assumed that this application submitted by him was signed. It can very well be that this portion has now been torn off to prejudice the case of the petitioner for consideration. The petitioner under direction of this Court has already been interviewed. Taking this application to be validly made, directions are hereby Civil Writ Petition No. 17544 of 2008 4 issued to open the result of interview kept in sealed cover and if the petitioner is coming in the zone of selection, to offer him appointment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, in the above terms. It is made clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to his eligibility otherwise on any other grounds. The photo copy of the torn application be kept on record and the original be returned to the respondents. July 23, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE