1. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing special appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.

2. Sanjeev Kumar is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11296 of 2016 (Sanjeev Kumar v. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection and another) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to non-suit the claim of petitioner appellant wherein candidature of petitioner appellant has been cancelled by means of order dated 2.2.2016.

3. The factual situation that has led and brought the petitioner appellant to this Court is that petitioner appellant had applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of Officer Scale-I in the Regional Rural Bank. The selection in question was to take place on the basis of online written examination and interview. The online written examination was conducted by Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai and record in question reflects that procedure of the same is that a call letter has to be downloaded and filled and then uploaded back after putting signature along with other conditions such as photographs, ID proof, etc. at the time of online examination. The online examinations are held at a particular centres where the candidates would appear and would be made to sit in front of computer and to undertake the examination. Petitioner appellant, in his turn, appeared at BBD Northern India Institute of Technology, Sector 2, Akhilesh Das Nagar, Lucknow with Roll No. User ID 3581092577 and in lieu of his presence in the examination concerned, the petitioner appellant has proceeded to append his signature as well as thumb impression in presence of Invigilator and not only this Invigilators signature has also been appended therein. Thereafter, it appears that petitioner appellant proceeded to make place for himself in the said examination and he was called for interview and at the point of time when he was called for interview, then apparently in the wisdom of authorities as there has been mismatch in signature and thumb impression, petitioner appellant was permitted provisionally to undertake the interview and on safer side report from Handwriting Expert has been called for and as in the report of Handwriting Expert there is mismatch in the signatures, accordingly, candidature of petitioner appellant has been turned down and such activity of the respondents impelled the petitioner appellant to be before this Court and learned Single Judge, in the present case, has concurred with the action, that has been so undertaken by the respondent no. 1, by passing order on 21.12.2016 and mentioning therein that "it is to be seen that from very beginning the petitioner was given information that in case of mismatch of any of the conditions, the candidature would be cancelled", then the action, that has been so undertaken, is strictly in consonance with the law and none of the rights of petitioner appellant has been infringed.

4. Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant, is contending before us that the opinion of Handwriting Expert is mere advisory and same cannot be made foundation and basis for non-suiting the claim of petitioner appellant and that too without providing any opportunity of hearing, as such, action, so undertaken, is perverse and illegal.

5. Countering the said submission Sri Ashok Trivedi, Advocate, appearing for Institute of Banking Personnel Selection as well as Sri Amrish Sahai, Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 2, contended that in the present case whatever action has been undertaken, same is strictly in consonance with the terms and conditions of the selection in question and law on the subject is clear that even if an incumbent is selected, he/she does not have indefeasible right to claim appointment as a matter of right, in view of this, no interference be made by this Court.

6. We have proceeded to examine the averments that have come forward in the light of the arguments that have been advanced before this Court and what we find that petitioner appellant has appeared in the online examination from the centre namely BBD Northern India Institute of Technology, Sector 2, Akhilesh Das Nagar, Lucknow with Roll No. User ID 3581092577 and at the said point of time he has proceeded to append his signatures as well as his thumb impression in presence of Invigilator and at the point of time when interview was to be held, there has been suspicion on said score as there was mismatch in between the two i.e. thumb impression and signatures of petitioner appellant and, in view of this, petitioner appellant has been provisionally permitted to undertake the interview and on safer side a report from Handwriting Expert has been called for and Handwriting Expert, in his wisdom, on both aspect of the matter pertaining to thumb impression as well as signatures has clearly opined that as far as the thumb impression is concerned there is no ample material for comparison as no ridge characteristics found in disputed thumb impressions are clear enough for being identified, hence no opinion whatsoever can be furnished regarding identity but as far as signatures are concerned certainly there is mismatch as the disputed signatures has not been written by the writer of admitted signatures. Once such an opinion has been expressed by an expert and in such a situation the candidature of petitioner appellant stands cancelled, then petitioner appellants submission that opportunity of hearing has not been provided to him, cannot be accepted by us, inasmuch as, petitioners candidature at all point of time has to be accepted as provisional and it is always in the domain of examining body, if there is any suspicion to cancel the candidature of a candidate provided there is adequate material in respect of the same, in view of this, the opinion has not been formed arbitrarily.

7. Here, in the present case, what we find that there has been apparent mismatch in signatures and thumb impression made by the petitioner appellant at the time of examination and in order to verify the situation a report has been called for from Handwriting Expert and once the opinion made by the authorities is duly supported by the report of Handwriting Expert, then in our considered opinion also as one of the primary condition of the selection that in case of mismatch of any of the conditions, the candidature would be cancelled, to say that there is any lack of authority or arbitrary action is there, cannot be accepted by us. We have also proceeded to examine the signatures, that have been appended by the petitioner appellant at page 297 and copy of the sample signatures at page 309 of the paper book as well as specimen signatures of the petitioner appellant and what we find that there is apparent mismatch on the face of it for which no explanation is coming forward

8. In view of the above, as far as we are concerned, we are not at all going to interfere in the matter but certainly in the present case as the case in hand is one of impersonation and an incumbent Sanjeev Kumar has proceeded to replace another incumbent in his place for undertaking the examination in question, a further enquiry is directed to be conducted in the matter as all other erring incumbents, who have facilitated such an action, be also punished, in accordance with law, in order to maintain the purity in the competitive examinations.

9. Special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.