P.B.BAJANTHRI, J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his name for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB pursuant to his selection record No.1726 of the select list of the candidates whose names have been recommended for appointment vide Annexure P-4.
(2.) The petitioner is a candidate for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.2.2011. The petitioner has completed formalities relating to selection like physical efficiency test and physical standard test. He has also successfully qualified in the written examination held on 5.6.2011. The reason for not issuing appointment order to the petitioner is that he did not comply the Column 22 & 23 of the Important Instructions to Candidates with reference to recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) vide Annexure R-2. Column 22 & 23 reads as follows:- "Column 22 and 23: Signature of candidate (Wherever required) Please sign in running hand. Signature in capital letters of English shall not be accepted and your application shall be summarily rejected. Unsigned application shall also be rejected."
(3.) The respondents have invoked the Column No. 22 and 23 above with reference to the signature of the petitioner "KAPiL DeV". According to the respondents it should have been running letters for the purpose of signature wherever required in the process of selection. In more than 7 documents, the petitioner has signed as "KAPiL DeV" he was subjected to physical efficiency test examination and other formalities. The respondents could have rejected or should have advised the petitioner that his signatures should be running. They did not do so. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed that the candidates have been given clear instructions, therefore, question of advising the petitioner to rectify his mode of signature is impermissible.;