Judgment (Per: Hon'ble Justice Smt. T. Meena Kumari) Service La w-Selection-petitioners were kept in doubtful candidates on the ground of impersonation in the competitive examination as signature and photograph of the petitioners were not of the same person-case of petitioner found to be doubtful by the court and therefore, an investigation directed to be conducted by an appropriate authority in accordance with law-however, in case of the another petitioner no variance found in his photograph and therefore, his case is required to be recommended for appointment. (Paras 9 to 12) Order The present appeal arises out of the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 157 of 2006. The respondents-petitioners have chosen to question the action of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'B.P.S.C.') in not appointing them to the post of clerk in pursuance of their success in the preliminary examination as well as in the written examination. Their case before the learned Single Judge was that they have filled up Form -A and B and after proper verification they were issued admit cards. With respect to their roll numbers they had appeared in the examination and they got success. However, reasons best known to the B.P.S.C., they have been placed in the list of 'doubtful candidates' and their representations have also gone against them. Questioning the said action in not appointing them to the post of clerks, they filed Hit petition being C.W.J.C. No. 157 of 2006 contending that admit cards were issued after proper verification and such verification was acknowledged by the Invigilator specially in Part-B Form in the examination hall. But, however, for no fault of their, they were kept in the list of 'doubtful candidates' depriving them of their right to employment. The above matter was contended by the B.P.S.C. before the learned Single Judge on the ground of 'impersonation'. Secondly, the photographs did not tally with the present respondent. Hence, their cases have been kept in the list of 'doubtful candidates'. Before the learned Single Judge B.P.S.C. was not able to produce Part-B Form of the candidate Kailash Nath Yadav and so far as Mukesh Kumar (Respondent No.2) is concerned, B.P.S.C. has doubted his case only on the ground of difference in the photographs. Hence, their cases have been kept in the list of 'doubtful candidates'. Before the learned Single Judge B.P.S.C. was not able to produce Part-B Form of the candidate Kailash Nath Yadav and so far as Mukesh Kumar (Respondent No.2) is concerned, B.P.S.C. has doubted his case only on the ground of difference in the photographs. However, learned Single Judge has allowed such writ petition on the ground that variance of the photographs could not be a ground as it was contended before the learned Single Judge that it was someone else who has submitted his photograph in the application form for the preliminary examination so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that written copy of Part-B Form contains the photograph of some other person and it is not the same person who had appeared in the written examination and there was impersonation of such person. 3. So far as respondent-petitioner no. 2 (whose Roll No. 35833) is concerned, it is also contended that someone else has submitted the form of the application for preliminary examination and he has also not been appointed on the ground of impersonation. It is also their contention that photographs have been affixed on Part-A and Part-B Forms and so far as respondent-petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the photograph affixed on Part-A Form looks slightly older than the photograph affixed on Part-B Form. Hence, he is not the same person who had appeared and whose photograph was affixed on Part-A Form and respondent no. 2 was not appointed questioning the said action the respondents preferred the writ petition. 4. Learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the B.P.S.C. and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition granting benefits to be, extended to the respondents herein. It is observed that if they are in the merit list and if any one below the respondents-petitioners in the merit list has been recommended for appointment, let B.P.S.C. forthwith make recommendation in favour of the respondents-petitioners. 5. Learned Single Judge observed that there was no reason of expressing the doubt on the basis of material that both the respondents did not appear in the examination. The materials furnished are not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that both the respondents did not appear in the examination. 5. Learned Single Judge observed that there was no reason of expressing the doubt on the basis of material that both the respondents did not appear in the examination. The materials furnished are not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that both the respondents did not appear in the examination. Holding so learned Single Judge directed the B.P.S.C. to appoint the respondents if they are in the merit list and anyone below the rank of the respondents-petitioners has been recommended for appointment. 6. Being aggrieved by the said direction, B.P.S.C. preferred this appeal and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in L.PA on 7.2.2008, B.P.S.C. recommended the candidature of the candidates, i.e., respondents-petitioners. Thereafter, State Government appointed the two respondents-petitioners. With reference to the order dated 7.2.2008 I.A. No. 1297 of 2007 has also been disposed of. 7. The matter has come up for hearing with the consent of the parties and by the direction of this Court 'specimen signatures' of the candidates have been sent to the Forensic Expert. The report received from the Forensic Expert would go to show that sufficient materials are not there for coming to the conclusion that the signatures found in the answer-sheets and the application forms and the matter has been heard at length by this Bench with the consent of the parties and entire materials have been placed before us by the B.P.S.C. as well as the respondents. Regarding answer-sheets, so far as Kailash Nath Yadav (respondent no. 1) is concerned, this Court has found that the said signatures on the plain papers, which have become a part of the case, and the signatures on the answer-sheets are more or less similar. Records filed by the B.P.S.C. would go to show that Form-B which contains the Roll No. 291196 belongs to Kailash Nath Yadav under advertisement no. 56/98. It would further go to show that the original answer-sheets also contains the signatures. 8. The contention of the B.P.S.C. before us is that the Form B could not be found in the original records in the case of Sri Kailash Nath Yadav. The records would go to show that manuscript Form-B (Parishist 'Kha') has been found in the record which has been produced before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court containing the Roll No. 291196 but however the photographs did not tally. The records would go to show that manuscript Form-B (Parishist 'Kha') has been found in the record which has been produced before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court containing the Roll No. 291196 but however the photographs did not tally. Hence they have kept him in the list of 'doubtful candidates'. So far as Mukesh Kumar is concerned, it has been contended by the B.P.S.C. that there is doubt in his case as someone else has submitted his application with his own photograph. 9. We had got an occasion to go through the entire materials including the report of the Forensic Expert. So far as Kailash Nath Yadav is concerned, this Court has asked him to sign on a plain paper. The attendance sheet as also the manuscript application were produced before this Copurt by B.P.S.C. which contains the signature of the Invigilator. It has to be mentioned herein that there is no explanation how the manuscript Form 'kha' was not accepted by the B.P.S.C. It has to be observed that no explanation was given from the side of the B.P.S.C. with reference to the acceptance of the manuscript Form-B by the concerned invigilator and also with reference to the signature of the invigilator. The said Kailash Nath Yadav was allowed to sit for the examination but however the dispute remains with reference to the photograph and on the query by this Court the said Kailash Nath Yadav who was physically present before this court submitted that the photograph is not his photo and this Court has not accepted the photograph. 10. Under the above circumstances, there is no explanation from the side of the B.P.S.C. or from the side of the Kailash Nath Yadav with regard to the photograph found of the third person who is slightly younger than respondent-petitioner no.1 and finds place in manuscript Form-B. 11. In the absence of any explanation either from the appellant-B.P.S.C. or from the said Kailash Nath Yadav, we are of the opinion that the identification of Kailash Nath Yadav still remains to be investigated. As it is truly a matter of fact to be investigated by an appropriate authority in accordance with law, we deem it proper to remand the matter before Respondent No. 4 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. As it is truly a matter of fact to be investigated by an appropriate authority in accordance with law, we deem it proper to remand the matter before Respondent No. 4 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. We also make it clear that it is for the authority to take an appropriate decision with regard to the enquiry report without being influenced by any of the observation made by the learned Single Judge or by this Court. We also make it clear that if the authority feels necessity of sending the signature before the Forensic Expert, liberty is granted to them to send the same to the Forensic Expert. We also make it clear that the enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice and according to the rules. 12. So far as Mukesh Kumar is concerned, we are of opinion that the photographs do not have any variance and with regard to the recommendation of the B.P.S.C. for appointment of Sri Mukesh Kumar, we deem it proper to confirm the same. 13. Since there is no fraud could be found on the part of the Mukesh Kumar, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed so far Mukesh Kumar is concerned. 14. Learned counsel for the B.P.S.C. seeks liberty of this Court to send the signatures of Kailash Nath Yadav for Forensic Expert's examination outside the State of Bihar. 15. Having heard both sides, such liberty is granted. 16. Records, which have been submitted to this Court by the B.P.S.C. in a sealed cover, may be returned to the B.P.S.C. 17. The entire exercise of enquiry must be completed within a period of six months. 18. With the above observation this Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of in the case of Kailash Nath Yadav (Respondent No.1).