Bombay High Court
Chetan Dnyaneshwar Patil And Another vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary And ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:30984-DB
926-12049-25.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12049 OF 2025
1. Chetan Dnyaneshwar Patil,
Age: 23 Years, Occ. : Student,
R/o. Vinter Pose Sarve,
Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon,
2. Pravin Kadaji Yadav,
Age: 22 years, Occ. : Student,
R/o. at Post Pali,
Tal. And District Beed. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Home affairs,
Through, its Secretary, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances
& Pensions,
Through its Secretary, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lohi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
4. Central Industrial Security Force,
Through It's Director General
Block - 13, CGO Complex, Lodha Road,
New Delhi - 110 003. ...Respondents
......
Mr. Ashish R. Fule, Advocate (through online) along with Mr. Vikram T.
Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, Senior Panel Counsel respondents No.1 to 4
......
926-12049-25.odt
{2}
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 12 NOVEMBER, 2025
ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. The petitioners in the present petition have approached this Court
under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking directions to the
respondents to declare their results for the recruitment to the post of
Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPFS), Secretariat
Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (GD) Assam Rifles Examination,
pursuant to the advertisement No. 2411 of 2023, issued on 24 th
November 2023. It is the case of the petitioners that they possessed all
the requisite qualifications prescribed for the said post. The petitioners
duly applied and were permitted to appear for the written examination
and having cleared the same were also called for the physical efficiency
test, physical standard tests and document verifications. During the
document verification process, the biometric details of the petitioners
were found to be not matching with those recorded earlier in the
recruitment database. Despite such observation, the petitioner No.1
appeared for the medical and physical examination on 01.10.2024.
Even upon subsequent biometric tests, the mismatch persisted.
Consequently, the petitioner No.1 were initially declared unfit and were
directed to undergo medical re-examination. He underwent a medical
926-12049-25.odt
{3}
re-examination on 22.10.2024 and was subsequently declared fit.
Petitioner No.2 also appeared for the medical and physical examination
28.09.2024, despite the biometric mismatch persisted. Subsequently,
petitioner No.2 was declared fit in medical and physical examination.
2. The verification of documents and the medical examination
process was thus completed. Notwithstanding their successful
completion of all stages of the recruitment process, the respondents
withheld the result of the petitioners solely on the ground of biometric
mismatch, even though the final result for other candidates was
published on 14th December, 2024.
3. According to the petitioners, the biometric mismatch is not a fault
attributable to them. The forensic report regarding the verification of
biometric data, forwarded by the respondents to the forensic
department, is still awaited for a considerable time without any
progress. The petitioners have therefore approached this court seeking
directions to expedite the process of obtaining the forensic report and or
to direct the respondents to publish their results so that they may
participate in the forthcoming training programme likely to commence
within a few weeks.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted
that the results in relation to biometric mismatch are still awaited, and
926-12049-25.odt
{4}
therefore, the results of the petitioners could not be declared till the
receipt of the forensic report. During the course of the hearing, the
petitioners' Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court that
similarly situated candidates have preferred a writ petition No.975 of
2025 and other companion matters before the Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench and those petitioners were also appearing in the same
examination and for the same position. Their results were also withheld
only due to the reason of biometric mismatch. He relied upon
paragraph 8, 9 and 10 which reads thus:
"8. Having considered the rival submissions, it appears that it is a
matter of record that the petitioners' candidature was considered by
the respondents, thereafter, the written examination conducted is also
successfully cleared by the petitioners herein. Resultantly, the physical
and document verification was carried out. However, but for Biometric
mismatch which is conducted by the respondents themselves, which is
according to us is not attributable to the petitioners herein, the
petitioners have been otherwise declared successful. Therefore, in our
considered view, the respondents are not justified in withholding the
results since the recruitment process has commenced in the month of
November 2023 and after lapse of substantial period, the respondents
are not justified in withholding the results of the petitioners, to which
petitioners are legitimately entitled for, in the wake of petitioners'
successfully clearing the written examination so also further act of
medical re-examination conducted by the respondents. Therefore, we
direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners within a
period of four weeks from today.
9. Needless to state that the candidature of the petitioners
deserves to be considered on their respective merit and if the
petitioners are otherwise qualified.
10. The writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above
terms with no order as to costs."
926-12049-25.odt
{5}
5. Upon making a query with the respondents advocate, whether the
facts of the present petitions and the facts before the Nagpur bench in
the above order are similar. He agreed and fairly submitted that all the
petitioners therein are similarly situated to the one which is before us in
the present petitions.
6. In light of the order dated 30th June 2025 passed by the division
bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in writ petitions
No.975 of 2025, 976 of 2025 and 977 of 2025, this court finds that the
facts and issues involved in the present petitions are identical and the
ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the present case.
7. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed in terms of
paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, extracted above. The respondents are directed
to declare the results of the petitioners within 4 weeks from the date of
this order.
8. Writ petition is disposed of.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
