Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 August, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
CWP-3273-2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-3273-2022 (O&M)
250 Date of Decision:05.08.2024
Harjeet Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Sahir Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
*****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus for directing the respondents to verify the identity and
presence of petitioner in examination of HTET held on 16.11.2019 and
thereafter to declare the result of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
applied for the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test in PGT (Physical
Education) Level-3 exam in the year 2019. After the scrutiny of
documents vide Annexure P-1 the petitioner was issued admit card for
appearing in exam which was to be held on 16.11.2019 at C.M.G.
Government College for Women, Bhodia Khera, District Fatehabad.
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
When the petitioner entered the examination hall he was told to give
finger prints on biometric machine. However, on that day, the petitioner
was having fungal infection on his fingers and thumb due to which the
process of biometric could not be undertaken by him and therefore he
immediately made a written request to the centre incharge by stating that
his biometric can not be done because of the allergy in his hands and
sought permission for being allowed to sit in the exam vide Annexure P-
2. He further submitted that due to the aforesaid problem in his hands,
biometric was not feasible for the petitioner and that is why he made a
request which was accepted by the centre incharge and therefore he took
aforesaid exam. He further submitted that instead of the biometric, his
manual thumb prints were taken on paper. He further submitted that
thereafter the petitioner was asked to appear before a committee for the
purpose of verification of the finger marks but the committee of the
respondent-Board could not do any verification because there was no
biometric of the petitioner and even otherwise also as per Annexure P-5
it is so stated that even for the other candidates the comparison could not
be made because of lack of provisions for investigation. He further
submitted that in other words even the comparison of biometric finger
prints would not be done by the respondent-Boards vide Annexure P-5
with respect to all the candidates despite the fact that the petitioner was
called and was present before the respondent-Board for five times. He
further submitted that thereafter the result of the petitioner was cancelled
because of the aforesaid reason.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
respondent-Board submitted that when the petitioner had come to the
examination centre, he could not give his finger prints on biometric
machine and the centre superintendent erroneously permitted him to take
the exam but that would not mean that the petitioner would be entitled for
the declaration of the result. In this regard, he referred to a judgment
passed by this Court in CWP No.14519-2017 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana and others) decided on 04.08.2017 whereby direction was
issued with regard to earlier exams of Teacher Eligibility Test that the
data base of fingers prints has to be made and thereafter the same has to
be compared before the declaration of result. He further contended that
the respondent-Board was bound by the direction issued by this Court in
the aforesaid judgment and since the biometric finger prints of the
petitioner could not be taken at the time of the exam the result had to be
cancelled because no verification could be done.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. It is a case where the petitioner appeared for the Haryana
Teacher Eligibility Test in PGT (Physical Education) Level -3 on
16.11.2019 and as per learned counsel for the petitioner, since the
petitioner was having allergic/fungal infection on the fingers his
biometric finger prints could not be taken. Heavy reliance has been
placed at Annexure P-2 by learned counsel for petitioner wherein on the
same date i.e.16.11.2019 the petitioner had requested the centre incharge
for allowing him to sit in exam by specifically stating that his biometric
finger prints cannot be taken because of the allergy in hands and
undisputedly he was permitted to take the exam on the same date. The
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
aforesaid Annexure P-2 is hereby reproduced as under:-
"To
The Center Incharge,
Government College for Women,
Bhodia Khera.
Sir,
It is requested that my name is Harjeet Singh.
My HTET Roll No. is 3012563. My biometric is not
being done, because I have allergy in my hands. Please
allow me to sit in exam.
Centre Code : 04002
Exam Centre : C.M.G., Govt. College for Women,
Bhodia Khera.
Date : 16.11.2019
Sd/-, Harjeet Singh Level 3
LTI RTI PGT:Physical Education
16/11/19 16/11/19"
6. Para No.6 of the writ petition and Para No.6 of the reply are
also reproduced as under:-
Para No.6 of the writ petition
"That on the scheduled date and time as
detailed in Admit Card, petitioner reached the examination center
and moved to appear in the exam. On that day also petitioner was
suffering with fungal/allergic infection in his hands and due to
fungal/allergic infection, the biometric scanning of his finger
mismatched. Due to mismatch, the officials/officers stopped the
petitioner to appear in the exam. But on request and after showing
his all identity proof and document by petitioner and explaining
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
about the fungal/allergic infection, officers/officials accepted his
request and constituted a committee of 4-5 persons on the spot. The
committee of 4-5 officers/official has taken a written request from
me on the spot and taken his manual finger prints on that request
application and allowed to appear in the examination. The
petitioner is appending herewith the true translated copy of the
request dated 16.11.2019 having finger prints and signatures of
committee members as Annexure P-2 for the kind consideration of
this Hon'ble Court."
Para No.6 of the reply
"6. That the contents of para no.6 of the writ petition are
not denied that the petitioner might have been permitted to appear
in the examination by the Superintendent of Examination subject to
further verification by the Board of School Education, Haryana. But
on five occasions, the petitioner was called for verification but the
verification could not be successful. Resultantly the result of the
petitioner was cancelled as the same could not have been declared
in the absence of verification as directed by this Hon'ble Court in
CWP No. 14519 of 2017 (Supra)."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid para No.6 of the writ petition would
show that the petitioner specifically averred in the petition that on the
date of exam the petitioner was suffering from fungal/allergic infection in
his hands and due to the same, biometric scanning of the fingers
mismatched and due to the mismatching of the finger print the
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
official/officer(s) stopped the petitioner to appear in the exam but on
request and after showing all of his identity proofs and documents by the
petitioner and explaining about the fungal/allergic infection, the
official/officer(s) of the respondent-Board had accepted his request and
constituted a committee of 4-5 persons on the spot. The aforesaid
committee had taken a written request from the petitioner and also taken
his manual finger prints in view of the request application annexed
alongwith the writ petition at Annexure P-2 and allowed him to take the
exam. However, as per the reply filed by respondent-Board to the
present petition, the aforesaid averments have not been denied and rather
it has been so stated that contents of para No.6 of the writ petition are
not denied and the petitioner might have been permitted to appear in the
examination by superintendent of examination subject to further
verification by the Board of School Education. However, it has been
further submitted in para No.6 of the reply that later on the petitioner was
called five times for verification but the verification could not be done
successfully and thereafter the result was cancelled. In other words the
averments which have been made by the petitioner in para No.6 of the
petition, have been admitted by the respondent-Board. It is, therefore,
clear that since petitioner was having a fungal/allergic infection in the
fingers, the biometric scanning of the fingers could not take place and
thereafter on his written request at the same time and at the same spot a
committee of 4-5 persons were constituted. Therefore, it cannot be said
that it was only because of the mistake of centre incharge that the
petitioner was permitted to take exam but it was a conscious decision of
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
the staff present there consisting of 4-5 officials to have permitted the
petitioner to take the exam. It can also be inferred clearly and safely that
committee of 4-5 persons must have inspected and seen the
fungal/allergic infection on the hands of the petitioner due to which he
could not undertake the biometric scanning and thereafter they took the
physical finger prints on paper as per para No.6 of the petition which has
not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that the
petitioner was having the aforesaid difficulty and the respondent-Board
after taking the written request by the petitioner, admittedly permitted
him to take the exam. Not only this, thereafter the petitioner was called
for five times for the purpose of verification but the verification failed
and a perusal of Annexure P-5 would show that the verification has failed
because the petitioner has not given his biometric at the time of aforesaid
exam. It is very strange that the petitioner could not give biometric
because of the aforesaid reason which is not denied by the respondents
and then his result has been cancelled on the ground that there was a
failure in the biometric by the petitioner. The aforesaid Annexure P-5 is
hereby reproduced as under:-
"BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANA, BHIWANI
(ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED ORGANISATION)
Website: www.bseh.org.in Email: [email protected]
Contact No. 01664-244171-76
From To
Secretary, Sanjay Ahuja, Advocate
Board of School Education Chamber No.25,
Bhiwani 127021 District Court Complex,
Fatehabad-125050
(Haryana).
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
Serial No. 686/V.P.C. Dated 17.01.2022
Subject:- Regarding result of Harjeet Singh Roll No. 3012563
candidate of HTET-2019.
Sir,
With reference to your notice dated 23.12.2021 it is
stated that
1. The following opportunities were provided by the
Board office for biometric verification in Haryana Teacher
Eligibility Test-2019:-
Sr. Details of opportunities given for biometric
No. verification
1. 30.12.2019 to 02.01.2020
2. 05.01.2020 to 08.01.2020
3. 22.01.2020 to 24.01.2020
4. 25.01.2020 to 27.01.2020
5. 10.02.2020 to 14.02.2020
In which due to failure in biometric of Harjeet Singh,
Roll No.3012563 the result RLV has been cancelled.
2. No letter has been given in this regard by the
candidate.
3. All that candidates were called in board office on
06.01.2021 for original sample of handwriting, thumb and finger
prints, but lack of provisions investigation could not held.
Sincerely
Sd/-, Assistant Secretary (V.P. Cell),
for Secretary "
8. A perusal of the Annexure P-5 would show very clearly that
the reasons for the cancellation of the result of the petitioner was "failure
in biometric" whereas it is an admitted case of the respondent-Board that
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
the petitioner was having the aforesaid allergic/fungal infection in his
hands and there is no denial of the same. Such reasoning given by the
respondent-Board is absolutely unsustainable and it is rather obnoxious
in nature. Not only this, even the biometric of various other candidates
could not be matched which is clear in para No.3 of Annexure P-5
reproduced as above. According to aforesaid para, even those students
who had given the biometric, the same also could not be verified because
of lack of provisions for investigation. Therefore, even if the petitioner
had assumingly given the biometric then also the same could not have
been compared as per para No.3 as aforesaid.
9. The learned counsel for respondent-Board has placed reliance
upon a judgment passed by this Court vide Annexure R-3/1 whereby a
direction was issued to take the finger prints data base/thumb impression
data at the time of examination and thereafter to compare the same before
the declaration of final result for the purpose of prevention of
impersonation. However, in the present case there is no question of
having any data base of the finger prints of the petitioner as his biometric
has not been done because of the aforesaid reason but his physical finger
prints have been taken and which were also not compared thereafter.
Therefore reliance placed upon the aforesaid judgment is absolutely mis-
conceived by the respondent-Board.
10. A perusal of aforesaid judgment as relied upon by learned
counsel for petitioner would show that primarily, the objective of using
system of biometric was to prevent impersonation. However, in the
present case, a committee of 4-5 officials took a decision on the spot to
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
permit petitioner to take exam due to his fungal/allergic infection on the
hands and fingers. Therefore, case of the petitioner could not fall in the
category of impersonation. Otherwise also a perusal of last portion of
aforesaid judgment would show that liberty was granted to the Board to
file appropriate application in case of difficulty in implementing the
judgment. However, the Board never filed any such application by
carving out a special case. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"The directions issued in the present case, to repeat, shall be
adopted by the Commission in all future examinations/selection processes
also. If the Commission faces any difficulty in implementing the
directions for any valid reason, it would obviously be at liberty to file an
appropriate application giving such reasons."
11. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner
took the exam on 16.11.2019 and his result has been cancelled and due to
cancellation of his result his career has been drastically effected because
the aforesaid examination which is pre-requisite for applying for the post
of teachers to which he could not apply because of the aforesaid reason.
This Court is of the considered view that the approach of the respondent-
Board is absolutely insensitive and is highly deprecated. Consequently
the present petition is allowed. The respondent-Board is directed to
forthwith declare the result of the petitioner and in any case within a
period of one month from today.
12. Considering the aforesaid insensitive attitude of the
respondent-Board which had an effect of wasting five years of the
petitioner, it will be just and proper to impose exemplary costs upon the
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100775
respondent-Board which are assessed as Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac
only) which shall be paid by the respondent-Board to the petitioner
within a period of two months from today.
13. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner
within aforesaid period, then the petitioner shall be entitled for future rate
of interest @9% (simple).
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
05.08.2024.
shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
