JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to A.G. for the respondent State. 2. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ application is that the respondents have illegally refused to allow him to join service on the post of Police Constable inspite of the fact that he was given letter of appointment pursuant to his selection after qualifying in the several tests conducted by the respondents. 3. Sri Rajiv Ranjan would submit that the petitioner had applied for the post in the prescribed format, in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents, way back in 2004. On being called upon to appear at the physical test, the petitioner did appear and had qualified in the test as declared in the results published. Thereafter he was called upon to appear before the Medical Board. He appeared and was declared qualified in the medical test also and thereafter, he was declared selected and an appointment letter was issued to him. Upon receiving the appointment letter, when the petitioner went to join his post in the district of Sahebganj, his joining was refused on the ground that his signature does not tally with the signature appearing on the original application form and also on the photograph pasted on the original application form. Learned counsel submits that on such flimsy grounds the respondent could not possibly cancel the appointment given to the petitioner and that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the controversy. It is submitted that even if there was some variance in the signatures, the respondent authorities ought to have got the signatures examined by a competent handwriting expert and furthermore, before arriving at a definite conclusion adverse to the petitioner, the respondent authorities ought to have verified as to whether the petitioner had appeared at the medical and physical tests and had qualified in the same. 4. Referring to the counter affidavit of the respondents, learned counsel submits that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner, being the actual applicant, had appeared at the physical and medical tests and in absence of any such dispute, the denial of the petitioner’s appointment, merely on the basis of some variations in the signatures in the master chart, could not have been cancelled. Learned counsel adds that there could be several explanations offered by the petitioner for the variations in the signatures, had he been given a reasonable opportunity to explain. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State, by referring to Annexure-A, which is the impugned letter issued by the office of the D.I.G. of Police, Dumka, would submit that the concerned authorities, upon examining the signature appearing in the master chart and comparing the same with the signature on the petitioner’s original application form and his photograph, had found clear variations in both the signatures and there was also reason to infer that the photograph pasted on the original application form, was substituted. 6. From the statements contained in the counter affidavit, it appears that the only ground of dispute as raised by the respondents is the purported variation in the signatures appearing in the master chart and in the application form of the petitioner. As it appears, before canceling the petitioner’s appointment, he was not offered opportunity to explain the purported variations and the controversy arising therefrom. Furthermore, it appears from the counter affidavit that the respondents have not specifically raised any dispute regarding the actual participation of the original applicant at the physical and medical tests nor is there any such suggestion that someone else had represented the original applicant in the name of the petitioner at the medical and physical tests. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances and for meeting the demand of justice and equity, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case and to take an appropriate decision after considering all the relevant facts after asceretaining as to whether the person who had appeared at the medical and physical tests was the petitioner himself and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matters regarding the purported variations in the signatures. The decision so taken shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner. This entire exercise must be carried out by the respondents and completed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.