ORDER : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Perused the impugned judgment and the relevant material on record relied upon by the rival parties. During course of re-measurement of height of the writ petitioner, an applicant for the post of Constable in Advertisement No. 01 of 2004, the respondents authorities found a mismatch in the photograph and the handwriting/signatures of the applicant viz. a viz. the original application form. The re-measurement was being done pursuant to an order of the learned Writ Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 48 of 2007 vide order dated 15.01.2007. During the re measurement exercise before a board presided over by Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.) South Chhotanagpur Region, Ranchi amongst the petitioner and four others, petitioner's height was found to be 176 cm. However, due to mismatch in his handwriting and signatures with the application form, he was declared not fit for selection and not considered for appointment. Being aggrieved therefrom petitioner approached this court in W.P. (S) No. 4228 of 2007 for quashing of the order of rejection dated 04.05.2007. The actual order of rejection dated 04.05.2007 was brought on record by the respondents during pendency of the writ petition. 3. It seems that petitioner chose to pursue a representation against the order of rejection dated 04.05.2007. The present writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5296 of 2008 was preferred thereafter for quashing of the letter dated 04.05.2007 and for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable. Learned Writ Court on consideration of the rival submissions and pleadings brought by the parties, arrived at an opinion that the disputed signature was examined by experts of C.I.D. Kolkata, who clearly opined that they are of different classes. Besides that writ petitioner's photograph attached with application form also did not match with the person who appeared before the committee for re-measurement. This created a suspicion in the minds of the committee and after obtaining expert's opinion from the Bureau, applicant/writ petitioner's candidature was rejected. On consideration of all these facts, learned Writ Court was of the view that the grounds of rejection did not warrant any interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India as the person who had signed and verified the application form was different from the person who appeared before the board on the date of re-measurement. On consideration of all these facts, learned Writ Court was of the view that the grounds of rejection did not warrant any interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India as the person who had signed and verified the application form was different from the person who appeared before the board on the date of re-measurement. An attempt to obtain employment was made by the candidate misrepresenting the facts and indulging in impersonation. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 363 “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” the writ petition was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment has laboured to bring home the point that opinion of the handwriting experts are not sacrosanct to be given such weight to reject the candidature of the petitioner when the petitioner's other credentials like matriculation certificate etc. do not create any doubt that he is one and the same person. The credentials of the petitioner has been made suspect without proper enquiry. Claim for appointment to the post of Constable has been denied without proper application of mind by the respondents and without taking into account all relevant and germane factors. Learned Writ Court failed to appreciate the issue in proper perspective and dismissed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State in reply submits that claim for the appointment to a public post is hedged with conditions. Since the identity of the petitioner became suspect due to clear mismatch in his handwriting/signatures during re-measurement compared with the original application form and the photograph of the applicant did not match with the person who appeared, the matter was referred for expert examination to the C.I.D. Kolkata on both counts. Based on their opinion, candidature of the petitioner was rejected as his identity was a matter of doubt and moreover it smacked of fraud and impersonation. In such a case, no claim of public appointment can be sustained. Therefore, the learned Writ Court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances brought on record. 6. We have conferred anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. We have taken note of the factual matrix of the case as above. Therefore, the learned Writ Court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances brought on record. 6. We have conferred anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. We have taken note of the factual matrix of the case as above. Public employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the applicant succeeds on merit and denial of employment is not based on arbitrary and unreasonable grounds. An employer has the right to satisfy about the credentials of a person of such an applicant seeking an employment. The facts noted above, persuaded the learned Writ Court to hold that there was a clear case of doubt about the identity of the person appearing for re-measurement with that of the original applicant in view of the mismatch of the handwriting/signatures and photographs affixed to the original application. In such circumstances, petitioner has failed to show any illegality or error in the findings of the learned Writ Court more so, since the decision of the respondent did not smack any arbitrariness or illegality. 7. We therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.