Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to direct the respondents to verify the identity and presence of petitioner in Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (‘HTET’) held on 16-11-2019 and declare the petitioner’s result, Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J., observed that the respondent-board had admitted that the petitioner had the allergic/fungal infection in his hands, and yet the petitioner’s result was cancelled with the reason of failure in biometric. The Court stated that such reasoning given by the respondent-board was absolutely unsustainable and rather obnoxious in nature. The biometric of various other candidates could not be matched 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.
The Court opined that the approach of the respondent-board was absolutely insensitive and was highly deprecated. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent-board to declare the petitioner’s result within a period of one month. Further, considering the respondent-board’s insensitive attitude, which had an effect of wasting five years of the petitioner, the Court imposed the exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000, which should be paid by the respondent-board to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.
Background
In 2019, petitioner applied for the HTET in PGT (Physical Education) Level 3 exam (‘the exam’) and after scrutiny of documents, an admit card was issued to the petitioner for appearing in exam which was to be held on 16-11-2019. When the petitioner entered the examination hall, he was told to give fingerprints on biometric machine. However, on that day, the petitioner had fungal infection/allergic reaction on his fingers and thumb due to which the process of biometric could not be undertaken by him. Therefore, the petitioner immediately made a written request to the centre in-charge, stating that his biometric could not be done because of the fungal infection/allergic reaction in his hands and sought permission for being allowed to sit in the exam.
The petitioner submitted made a request to appear in the examination, after showing all of his identity proofs and documents and explaining about the fungal/allergic infection, which was accepted by the centre in-charge and the petitioner took the exam. Thus, instead of the biometric, the petitioner’s manual thumb prints were taken on paper. Thereafter, when the petitioner was asked to appear before a committee for verification, the committee of the respondent could not do any verification as there was no biometric of the petitioner. Even for the other candidates, the comparison could not be made because of lack of provisions for investigation. The petitioner submitted that thereafter, the petitioner’s result was cancelled because of the failure of biometric verification.
On the other hand, the respondent submitted that when the petitioner came to the examination centre, he could not give his fingerprints on biometric machine and the centre superintendent erroneously permitted him to take the exam. However, that would not mean that the petitioner would be entitled for the declaration of the result.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that it was clear that since petitioner had a fungal/allergic infection in the fingers, the biometric scanning of the fingers could not take place. Thereafter, on the petitioner’s written request at the same time and spot, a committee of four-five persons were constituted. Thus, the Court stated that it could not be said that, only because of the mistake of centre in-charge, the petitioner was permitted to take exam, as it was a conscious decision of the staff consisting of four-five officials to permit the petitioner to take the exam.
The Court stated that it could also be inferred clearly and safely that the committee of four-five persons must have inspected and seen the fungal/allergic infection on the petitioner’s hand and took the physical fingerprints of the petitioner’s finger on paper. Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner had the difficulty and the respondent-board after taking the written request by the petitioner, admittedly permitted him to take the exam. The Court stated that it was very strange that the petitioner could not give biometric because of the fungal infection/allergic reaction, which was not denied by the respondents and then his result had been cancelled on the ground that there was a failure in the biometric by the petitioner.
The Court observed that the respondent-board had admitted that the petitioner had the allergic/fungal infection in his hands, and yet the petitioner’s result was cancelled with the reason of failure in biometric. The Court stated that such reasoning given by the respondent-board was absolutely unsustainable and rather obnoxious in nature. Not only this, even the biometric of various other candidates could not be matched 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.
The Court opined that the approach of the respondent-board was absolutely insensitive and was highly deprecated. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent-board to declare the petitioner’s result within a period of one month. Considering the insensitive attitude of the respondent-board which had an effect of wasting five years of the petitioner, the Court imposed the exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 upon the respondent-board, which should be paid by the respondent-board to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Further, if the amount was not paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the petitioner should be entitled for simple rate of interest at the rate of 9%.
[Harjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 9080, decided on 05-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sahir Singh Virk, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana; K.K. Gupta, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
