JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Applications were invited for appointment on the post of Navik (General Duty) in the Coast Guard Armed Forces of the Union of India. The petitioner applied. A written examination was held on 18th October, 2010 by the Coast Guard Selection Board. The petitioner qualified in the written examination and was thereafter sent for medical examination in which he also succeeded. By a letter dated 11th January, 2011, the petitioner was intimated that he has been provisionally selected for the post in question subject to completion of pre-enrollment formalities and medical fitness by the training establishment. By the said letter, the petitioner was required to report on a particular date alongwith the documents as contemplated in paragraph 3 of the letter. For facility paragraph 3 and 6 of the letter dated 11th January, 2011 by which the petitioner was informed that he was selected for the post of Navik (General Duty) is extracted hereunder: “3. You are also to complete the Attestation Forms (in triplicate) after affixing your latest passport size photograph and bring the same to this Headquarters. You are also to bring the following documents with you: (a) This letter. (b) Eight passport size photographs with negative. (c) Original Matriculation/12th standard or equivalent certificate indicating date of birth, together with three photostat copies thereof. (d) OBC/Scheduled Case/Scheduled Tribe certificate, if you belong to this category. 6. It is to be clearly understood by you that your selection is provisional till you complete other pre-enrollment formalities and final medical fitness by the raining establishment.” 2. The petitioner on the date fixed reported alongwith original documents. For reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner was not sent for training and he was told to go back. The petitioner, thereafter made a representation which remained pending and, consequently, the present writ petition was filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to sent the petitioner for training on the basis of his selection on the post of Navik (General Duty) pursuant to the letter dated 11th January, 2011. The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit and the reasons given by the respondents for cancelling his selection is given in paragraph 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the counter-affidavit. For facility the contents of paragraph 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) are extracted hereunder : “3. The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit and the reasons given by the respondents for cancelling his selection is given in paragraph 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the counter-affidavit. For facility the contents of paragraph 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) are extracted hereunder : “3. That before giving para wise reply to the averments contained in the writ petition, the relevant facts which are necessary to be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court are as under : Brief Facts of the Case (a) That the petitioner was a candidate for Navik (GD)-01/2011 batch with Roll No. NDGD/SC - 5709 and reported to CGSB, Noida for enrollment on 27.1.2011. As he had qualified and was fit in medical, he was issued with appointment letter RT/0207/01/2011/49 dated 11.1.2011 for enrollment as per merit list. The appointment letter clearly stated that his selection is provisional subject to completion of pre-enrollment formalities and final medical fitness by the training establishment. (b) That on reporting all candidates were interviewed and their documents were scrutinised. As part of the pre-enrollment procedure the petitioner’s educational certificates were verified by the Director of Recruitment in presence of the petitioner, suspicion arose in view of a complaint against the petitioner regarding use of money for getting selected in the Coast Guard and as the petitioner was unable to provide details of his educational achievements inasmuch as he was also not aware of his obtaining distinction in Science subject in High School examination and also the academic years in which he passed his high school and intermediate examinations. The petitioner on being asked to provide personal information in a format, had difficulty in filling the same in English. His handwriting and knowledge in English language was not analogous to his claimed educational qualification as he had passed 10th and 12th with English as a subject. Considering the above factors a re-assessment of the petitioner was conducted. (c) That in re-assessment the petitioner was given the same question paper to answer in which he had appeared during the initial recruitment test at Noida on 18-21 October, 2010. The petitioner scored only 15 out of 50 marks whereas he had scored 35 marks initially. Further, the petitioner was asked a few basic general knowledge questions such as the name of the U.P. Chief Minister, Name of the President, Capital of India etc. which he was not able to answer. The petitioner scored only 15 out of 50 marks whereas he had scored 35 marks initially. Further, the petitioner was asked a few basic general knowledge questions such as the name of the U.P. Chief Minister, Name of the President, Capital of India etc. which he was not able to answer. As a doubt arose regarding his competence, the petitioner was held back and further inquiry was initiated. He was asked to provide all facts regarding his recruitment and name of the persons who had helped him. The petitioner however, did not reveal any details but he stated that he had used unfair means and had copied from another candidate in the written examination. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected as his standard of knowledge, understanding and demeanour was not commensurate with his claimed educational qualification and his own admission of copying from another candidate in the written exam. As such he was not enrolled in the Coast Guard and his candidature was cancelled. A receipt was obtained from the petitioner on return of his original documents. Thus it was clearly communicated to him that his candidature stood cancelled on 9.2.2011.” 3. From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner succeeded in the written examination and was also found fit by the Medical Board. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter on 11th January, 2011 and when the petitioner reported alongwith the original documents, the respondents became suspicious that the petitioner used unfair means for getting selected. This suspicion was based on a complaint that the petitioner used extraneous consideration for his selection. The respondents further contended that there was a doubt with regard to his educational qualifications as the petitioner was unable to answer simple questions. On this suspicion, the respondents took another examination giving him the same question paper, in which he obtained only 15 marks out of 50 marks, whereas in the earlier examination he had obtained 35 marks out of 50 marks. The respondents further contended that the petitioner admitted that he has used unfair means in the examination and, consequently, cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. 4. These facts which has been stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit has been vehemently denied by the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner admitted that he had used unfair means has been specifically denied. 4. These facts which has been stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit has been vehemently denied by the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner admitted that he had used unfair means has been specifically denied. The petitioner has further contended that the questions that was put to him were difficult and which were not easy to understand. 5. In the light of the stand of the rival parties, one thing which comes to the fore is, whether the respondents could have undertaken a re-examination of the petitioner in the absence of any specific provision to that effect. The Court is of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondents was contrary to the Rules. The respondents had no authority to make the petitioner sit again in an examination in which he had already succeeded and qualified. The mere fact that the respondents had a nagging suspicion that the petitioner had used unfair means could not justify them in making the petitioner appear again in a written examination. The respondents had no business in questioning the educational certificates given by him. If a person has obtained distinction in a particular subject the respondents cannot question him on that score and come out with an answer that the distinction, which he had obtained was unfair or that he had obtained the distinction by unfair means. 6. There is no whisper in the counter-affidavit that the high school and intermediate certificates submitted by him are forged documents. Once an educational certificate is found to be true and genuine, the marks contained therein has to be accepted by the respondents and it is not their business to find out as to whether the person had obtained the marks rightly or wrongly. Such procedure adopted by the respondents amounts to assassination of the character of the petitioner, which was not permissible. If the respondents had received a complaint against the petitioner, it was open for them to inquire into that complaint. The complaint was that the petitioner was selected on account of extraneous consideration given by him. Instead of investigating the illegal gratification paid by the petitioner, the respondents have undertaken an exercise of assassinating his character in holding that there was a strong doubt in the educational certificates produced by him and in holding that he was unable to fill the form. 7. Instead of investigating the illegal gratification paid by the petitioner, the respondents have undertaken an exercise of assassinating his character in holding that there was a strong doubt in the educational certificates produced by him and in holding that he was unable to fill the form. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced the original OMR sheets which the petitioner had filled and the Court finds that from a perusal of the handwriting that it was not such by which an opinion could be formed that the petitioner had difficulty in filling the form in English language. The calligraphy is well formed and the columns have been filled with clarity with no overwriting. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. Once the petitioner has been selected, no examination afresh could have been taken and the only requirement which the respondents were required to complete was specified in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the appointment letter, namely, pre-enrollment formalities and final medical fitness by the training establishment. The exercise done by the respondents as culled out in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit was wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction which cannot be sustained nor can that be made a basis for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus of issued commanding the respondents to sent the petitioner for training pursuant to the appointment letter dated 11th January, 2011 upon completion of pre-enrollment formalities etc. within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. ——————