Eye Opener On Exam Integrity | Haryana SSC Prima Facie Guilty Of Contempt For Flouting Court-Mandated Biometric Verification | Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Recall Of Exam Results
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj has allowed writ petitions challenging the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s handling of the Junior Engineer (Civil) recruitment process. The court directed the Commission to recall the final selection result and to undertake biometric verification of candidates at various stages of the recruitment process with Aadhaar data before declaring a revised result. This directive aligns with earlier binding judicial mandates. Additionally, the court ordered issuance of a show cause notice to the Commission through its Secretary, seeking an explanation as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for non-compliance with previous court orders.
The petitions sought directions to the respondents to issue notices to candidates selected in the final selection list dated 06.06.2020 for verification of documents, undertakings, certificates, and affidavits before recommendation for appointment. The petitioners also sought comparison of biometric signatures on OMR sheets with specimen signatures obtained earlier, to confirm the identity of candidates who appeared in the written test, in line with earlier court judgments aimed at preventing impersonation in examinations conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
At the outset, counsel for the petitioners stated that the prayer for verification of affidavits and undertakings for the grant of five marks under socio-economic criteria had become infructuous, as that clause had been set aside by a Division Bench and the recommendation list was to be finalised afresh. The petitioners limited their prayer to ensuring compliance with directions issued in the judgment dated 04.08.2017 in CWP-14519-2017 (Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others) as reviewed on 30.07.2018, before final recommendations were made.
The petitioners had applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under various categories pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2019 dated 15.06.2019, appeared in the written test held on 01.09.2019, and were successful in the result declared on 21.09.2019. The scrutiny of documents was scheduled for October 2019, followed by the final result declared on 06.06.2020. The marks and selection status of petitioners varied, with some placed in the waiting list, some unselected due to age, and some having lesser marks.
The petitioners alleged that certain selected candidates claimed socio-economic marks without verification of certificates and that appointments were issued without verifying the authenticity of candidates who appeared in the exams. The Division Bench in Neeraj v. State of Haryana (CWP-16904-2021, decided 22.05.2025) had set aside the five marks for socio-economic criteria, directing publication of a revised result and prescribing treatment for candidates whose appointments were impacted.
The petitioners relied on the Rajesh Kumar judgment, which had issued directions to counter examination malpractices, including biometric verification with Aadhaar. In the review order dated 30.07.2018, the court modified the directions to require fingerprint matching for teacher selection processes from November 2017 onwards and for other selection processes to compare fingerprints with Aadhaar data.
The petitioners argued that despite binding directions, the respondents declared the final result without biometric verification. Reference was made to other recruitments (Advertisement Nos. 3 of 2021, 15 of 2019, and 4 of 2020) where biometric and facial verification was implemented before declaring results. Notices in those cases stated that mismatches would result in cancellation of candidature and debarment from future recruitment.
In their pleadings, the petitioners pointed out that the respondents did not commit to having undertaken biometric verification in this case, amounting to an admission. Affidavits filed in earlier matters indicated that the Commission had implemented biometric verification processes in other recruitments and that Aadhaar verification had been upheld by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (26.09.2018).
The petitioners argued that the Commission’s own affidavits showed awareness of the requirement and capability to conduct biometric verification, yet the procedure was not applied to the Junior Engineer (Civil) recruitment. They contended that verification of candidate identity was the Commission’s responsibility and could not be delegated to the Government.
The State’s counsel relied on the Commission’s reply stating that recruitment was conducted per advertisement and instructions, and that after selection, verification of socio-economic criteria and other documents was the responsibility of the concerned department, as mentioned in recommendation letters.
The court noted that the respondents’ short reply did not indicate compliance with the biometric verification requirement and that their request for time to file an additional affidavit was an attempt to delay adjudication.
The court recorded that "as the judgments passed by this Court dated 04.08.2017 and as reviewed on 30.07.2018 in the matter of Rajesh Kumar (supra) are not a subject matter of dispute and are binding upon the respondents, they were hence obligated to ensure compliance thereof." The court further stated that "no explanation has been put forth as to why the said procedure has not been complied with in the present case of Junior Engineer (Civil) as well." It found that "the conduct of respondent –Haryana Staff Selection Commission in selectively applying the mandatory directions given by this Court... appears to be lacking bona fide."
The court observed that affidavits filed by the Commission were contradictory. In one affidavit, they stated that biometric verification was undertaken in all selection processes, yet in the reply in the present case, the process was not applied. "The respondents conveniently chose to be manipulative about the wording and posing as if verification of the documents and verification of the candidate is one process." The court clarified that verification of academic and other documents is distinct from verification of candidate identity, which could not be undertaken by the Government.
The court recorded that the Commission obtained thumb impressions at three stages — application submission, examination, and document verification — and that this data, in the Commission’s possession, should be compared with Aadhaar to ensure no impersonation. The court described the Commission’s failure as "a mischievous attempt... to deliberately choose misleading words to portray compliance despite being aware that the needful had not been done."
The court stated that such concealment was not oversight but an attempt to distort facts, and that "officials vested with the responsibility have more often failed to protect the fairness in action or to rise in an hour of challenge." It noted that prima facie, Commission officials were guilty of contempt for disobeying specific directions, and that delegating biometric verification to the State Government amounted to unlawfully sub-delegating a judicially mandated function.
The court directed that the Commission recall the final result already declared and undertake the exercise of biometric verification in terms of the mandate in the judgment dated 30.07.2018 read with the judgment dated 04.08.2017. The court specified that in the present case, where the Commission had already been directed by a Division Bench in Neeraj Kumar to revise the result after deleting socio-economic criteria marks, "it is hence further directed that the aforesaid process of declaration of result shall be preceded by verification of the bio-metric data already collected by the respondents at different stages from the Aadhar to ascertain the identity of the candidates, from the Aadhar, in compliance of the judgment in the matter of Rajesh Kumar (Supra), before the same is declared."
The writ petitions were allowed in these terms. The court further ordered that "a Show Cause Notice as to why contempt of Court proceedings be not initiated against the Haryana Staff Selection Commission" be served through its Secretary. The matter was to be placed before the Chief Justice to list the contempt matter before an appropriate bench.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana
Case Title: Kapil Saini v. State of Haryana and another; Vikram and others v. State of Haryana and another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:092540
Case Number: CWP-12131-2022; CWP-26949-2022
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
