Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar, allowed a series of writ petitions filed by candidates whose results for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) were withheld by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on the ground of biometric mismatch.
The Court held that the biometric discrepancies were not attributable to the candidates and that the recruitment authorities were unjustified in indefinitely withholding results despite the completion of all stages of selection.
Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated 30 June 2025, which dealt with identical issues, the Court directed the SSC and Union of India to declare the petitioners’ results within four weeks.
Justice Hiten Venegavkar, writing for the Bench, stated:
“The respondents are not justified in withholding the results since the recruitment process commenced in November 2023 and, after lapse of substantial time, the petitioners—having cleared all stages—cannot be deprived of their legitimate entitlement.”
Facts
The petitioners had applied for the posts of Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) under an advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission on 24 November 2023 for various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, SSF, and Assam Rifles.
The petitioners fulfilled all eligibility requirements, appeared for the written examination, and cleared it successfully. They then proceeded through subsequent rounds, including the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), document verification, and medical examination.
However, during document verification, the authorities found that the biometric data recorded during the earlier stage did not match the fingerprints or iris scans of the petitioners. Despite this observation, they were allowed to continue and even underwent medical re-examination, after which they were declared fit for appointment.
Nonetheless, while the results for other candidates were published on 14 December 2024, the results of the petitioners were withheld solely due to biometric mismatch. The forensic verification report of their biometric data was said to be pending for months.
The petitioners contended that the delay was administrative and beyond their control, and that they were suffering severe prejudice as the training programme was about to commence.
Issues
- Whether the respondents were justified in withholding the petitioners’ results solely on the ground of biometric mismatch.
- Whether the delay in forensic verification of biometric data violated the petitioners’ right to fair consideration and equality in recruitment.
- Whether the High Court could direct the declaration of results despite pending forensic verification.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Satej Jadhav, argued that they had completed all stages of the recruitment process and were declared fit after re-examination. The biometric mismatch, if any, was due to technical or administrative errors, not any fraudulent act or misrepresentation by the candidates.
It was submitted that forensic verification had been pending for several months, and that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) had not yet issued a final report. The petitioners contended that the delay in forensic analysis could not be used as a ground to indefinitely withhold their results, especially when they had successfully cleared all tests.
Counsel argued that the petitioners were being unfairly discriminated against, as other candidates in similar circumstances before the Nagpur Bench had already obtained relief. They relied on the order in Writ Petition No. 975 of 2025 (and connected matters) decided on 30 June 2025, where the Court had directed the SSC to declare the results of candidates facing biometric mismatch within four weeks.
It was emphasized that withholding results indefinitely violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, amounting to arbitrary discrimination.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents, represented by Senior Panel Counsel R.B. Bagul and Central Government Counsel N.T. Bhagat, argued that the results were withheld because the biometric mismatch raised doubts regarding the authenticity of the candidates’ identity.
They submitted that the matter was referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for verification, and until the receipt of the forensic report, the results could not be declared. The respondents insisted that no prejudice was intended, but that the declaration of results before forensic verification could compromise the integrity of the recruitment process.
However, when questioned by the Bench, counsel for the Union of India fairly conceded that the facts in the present case were identical to those in the Nagpur Bench judgment, where relief had already been granted.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that the SSC’s recruitment rules and procedural guidelines did not authorize indefinite withholding of results due to administrative delay in forensic confirmation, particularly when candidates had already cleared all other stages.
Justice Venegavkar emphasized that biometric systems, though essential for transparency, are not infallible and technical mismatches may occur due to equipment malfunction, fingerprint erosion, or human error.
The Court reiterated that candidates cannot be made to suffer for systemic deficiencies, and that the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 requires authorities to act reasonably and proportionately.
It further observed that since the respondents themselves admitted the factual similarity with the Nagpur Bench judgment, judicial consistency required uniform treatment to all similarly placed candidates.
Precedent Analysis
- Writ Petition No. 975 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) – The Court held that candidates whose biometric mismatches were not attributable to them were entitled to their results being declared. The present Bench followed this ruling in toto.
- Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 693 – Reaffirmed that once a candidate has cleared all stages of recruitment, administrative lapses cannot justify withholding appointment.
- State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh (2009) 5 SCC 65 – Held that procedural delay cannot defeat a candidate’s substantive right to be considered for selection.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the delay in forensic verification could not be used to deny the petitioners their legitimate right to have their results declared. It observed that no evidence suggested impersonation or fraud, and the mismatch could have resulted from technical anomalies.
Justice Venegavkar noted that the Nagpur Bench judgment had already settled the issue, and the respondents’ own counsel admitted factual parity. Hence, judicial discipline required extending the same relief.
The Court observed:
“It is not a case where petitioners failed to qualify or furnished false information. The respondents’ inaction despite the passage of several months is unjustified and contrary to the principles of fair play.”
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to declare the petitioners’ results within four weeks from the date of the order.
The Bench made it clear that the petitioners’ candidature must be assessed purely on merit, independent of the biometric issue, and if found otherwise eligible, they must be considered for appointment in the ongoing recruitment cycle.
“The respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners within four weeks. The candidature of the petitioners deserves to be considered on their respective merits.”
No costs were awarded, and the rule was made absolute.
Implications
This judgment reinforces key principles of fairness and equality in recruitment. It clarifies that:
- Biometric mismatches, when not caused by candidates, cannot justify indefinite withholding of results.
- Forensic delays or administrative inefficiencies cannot impede legitimate rights of qualified candidates.
- The ruling sets a precedent for uniform relief to candidates in nationwide recruitments conducted by SSC and other central agencies, particularly in technology-based verification systems.
It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring administrative accountability in digital recruitment processes, balancing technological safeguards with human fairness.
