Rohit vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
210
Rohit
State of Ha
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. H
for th
Mr. S
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8563-
Date of De
-2024 (O&M)
ecision:- 12.11.2026
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Himanshu Sharma, Advocate
he petitioner.
Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition under Art
ticles 226 of the Constitution of
f
India has been fil
led by the petitioner for issuanc
ce of a writ praying for issuance
e
of a writ in the n
ature of certiorari for setting as
side the impugned notice dated
d
14.07.2023 (Anne
exure P-1) issued by the Respon
dent No.2 regarding biometric /
/
facial re-verificat
ion of the Petitioner in a third
round of biometric / facial re-
-
verification; and
in continuance of above imp
pugned notice, a letter dated
d
09.11.2023 (Anne
exure P-2) vide which the reco
ommendation of the petitioner
r
has been withdra
awn and further direction has
been given to the respondents
s
number 4 by offic
cial respondents to take necessa
ary action against the petitioner,
,
ignoring the fact
that the Petitioner has again jo
oined his respective department
t
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
after the order p
(O&M) - 2 -
passed by this Court in CWP No
o. 15672/2021 vide order dated
d
25.4.2022 in com
mpliance of which a revised fina
al result dated 23.06.2022 was
s
pronounced and
vide notice dated 24.06.2022
2 a notice was issued by the
e
Respondent No.2
2 vide which they were called
d for the biometric and facial
l
verification and
after appearing for the b
biometric/facial verification in
n
compliance of no
tice dated 24.06.2022 revised fi
nal result dated 05.07.2022 was
s
pronounced and
d after the pronouncement o
f the revised final result the
e
Petitioner was is
ssued their respective joining le
etters and now vide impugned
d
notice and letter
dated 14.07.2023 and 09.11.20
023 respectively the direction by
y
official Responde
ent No.1 to 3 to Respondent No
.4 is liable to be to be set aside
e
being arbitrary, u
unlawful, which is a non-speakin
ng order and hence, is liable to
o
be set aside.
2. Brief
f facts of the case are in chronolo
ogical sequence are as follows: -
-
20.06.2019: Resp
pondent No. 2/HSSC had issu
ed Advertisement No. 5/2019
9
dated 20.06.2019
9 (Annexure P-3) for direct recru
uitment to 4858 posts of Clerk/
/
Group C. Being el
igible, petitioner had applied; a
nd pursuant to which petitioner
r
had appeared f
for the written examination
held between 21.09.2019 to
o
23.09.2019.
18.12.2019: Resu
ult of the said exam was publishe
ed on 18.12.2019 and successful
l
candidates were
called for scrutiny of docum
ments. Being successful in the
e
written examinat
tion, petitioner had duly appea
ared for scrutiny of documents.
.
03.09.2020: The
reafter, final result dated 03
3.09.2020 (Annexure P-5) was
s
published by HSS
SC. Petitioner was placed in the
e final merit list (Annexure P-5),
,
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
which proves tha
(O&M) - 3 -
t documents submitted by the p
petitioner and facial verification
n
of the petitioner w
was successful in the first round
of scrutiny of documents.
08.09.2020: Acco
ordingly, vide Communication da
ated 08.09.2020 (Annexure P-6),
,
Petitioner was all
ocated Department of Urban Lo
ocal Bodies.
14.09.2020: Vide
letter dated 14.09.2020 (Annex
xure P-7), petitioner was offered
d
appointment to p
post of Clerk against Advertisem
ent No. 5/2019, Category No. 1,
,
by the Commissi
oner, Municipal Corporation, Ya
amunanagar-Jagadhri; pursuant
t
to which petition
er had joined as such.
25.4.2022 : In the
e meantime, the aforesaid selec
ction was challenged by way of
f
CWP-15672-2021
1. Vide order dated 25.04.2022
(Annexure P-10) passed by this
s
Court, the first m
erit list was quashed, and officia
al respondents were directed to
o
prepare fresh me
rit list.
17.05.2022: Purs
suant thereto, respondents iss
sued notice dated 17.05.2022
2
(Annexure P-11)
) for fresh scrutiny of docu
uments, biometric and facial
l
verification. Petit
ioner had duly appeared for the
e same.
23.06.2022: Ther
reafter, revised/second final resu
ult dated 23.06.2022 (Annexure
e
P-12) was declare
ed. However, result of the petit
tioner was not declared due to
o
pending biometri
c and facial re-verification.
24.06.2022: Ther
reafter, vide Public Notice date
ed 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-13)
)
issued by Respon
ndent No. 2/HSSC, it was inform
med that result of 58 candidates
s
including the pet
titioner was withheld, by mentio
oning their specific roll number
r
due to biometric
c and facial re-verification. Vid
e the said Notice, the said 58
8
candidates and th
he petitioner were called for bio
ometric and facial re-verification
n
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
on 27.06.2022; o
(O&M) - 4 -
on which date, petitioner had
duly appeared in the office of
f
HSSC.
05.07.2022: Afte
r biometric and facial re-verific
cation, final revised/third result
t
dated 05.07.202
2 (Annexure P-14) was decla
ared, in which petitioner was
s
declared to be su
ccessful.
12.12.2022: The
ereafter, petitioner was allot
tted the Irrigation and W.R.
.
Department, Har
yana; and was issued Letter of
Appointment dated 12.12.2022
2
(Annexure P-8)
by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrig
gation and W.R. Department,
,
Haryana, Panchku
ula. Petitioner joined office of R
espondent No. 4 on 15.12.2022
2
itself, and since th
hen petitioner was working in th
he office of Respondent No. 4.
14/20.07.2023 : H
However, now, respondents N
No. 2 and 3 have issued the
e
impugned notice
e dated 14.07.2023 (Annexur
re P-1) to the petitioner for
r
biometric/facial r
re-verification for the third tim
me. Notwithstanding the above
e
facts, in complian
nce of the above impugned noti
ce dated 14.07.2023, Petitioner
r
had duly appeare
ed in the respondent office as pe
er schedule on 25.07.2023.
09.11.2023: How
wever, Respondent No. 2 has ser
rved the impugned letter dated
d
09.11.2023 (Anne
exure P-2) withdrawing recomm
mendation of the petitioner on
n
account of ‘mism
atch’ of biometric and facial reco
ognition.
21.11.2023: Upon
n receiving the impugned order/
/P-2, petitioner had submitted a
representation da
ated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-1
16) in the office of Respondent
t
No. 4 where the p
petitioner is posted.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
07.12.2023: Upon
(O&M) - 5 -
n receipt of the petitioner's rep
presentation, Respondent No. 4
4
had issued mem
o dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure
e P-17) to the Secretary, HSSC/
/
Respondent No. 1
1 requesting to reconsider case o
of the petitioner.
01.04.2024: How
wever, vide reply dated 01.04.202
24 (Annexure P-18), respondent
t
No. 1 has rejec
ted request of Respondent N
No. 4 to consider case of the
e
petitioner.
15.04.2024: Henc
ce, present writ petition.
19.4.2024 : Vide
order dated 19.04.2024, Coord
dinate Bench has directed that
t
petitioner shall no
ot be relieved from service.
3. It is
inter alia contended by the ld.
counsel for the petitioner that
t
the petitioner's
biometric as well as facial v
verification was done by the
e
respondents twic
ce over and was found 'matche
ed’. However, pursuant to third
d
biometric/facial
re-verification, the impugne
ed order dated 09.11.2023
3
(Annexure P-2),
has been passed by the C
Commission to withdraw the
e
recommendation
with the status 'mismatch'. It
t is pointed out that in similar
r
circumstances, th
his Court vide order dated 16.01
1.2024 (Annexure P-20), allowed
d
biometric/facial
verification of candidate from
m Forensic Science Laboratory,
,
Madhuban, with
consent of learned State coun
nsel, following the earlier such
h
order dated 01.12
2.2023 (Annexure P-19).
4. Ld. c
counsel for the petitioner subm
mits that the impugned order is
s
unsustainable, als
so on account of the fact that in
n both the previous final results
s
dated 03.09.2020
0 and 05.07.2022, petitioner ha
as been declared successful and
d
on the basis of th
e same biometric and facial reco
ognition.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
5. It is
(O&M) - 6 -
contended that after the two
rounds of biometric and facial
l
verification in the
e years 2020 and 2022, and aft
ter fresh letter of appointment
t
dated 12.12.2022
2 (P-8), was issued to the Petit
tioner and after joining in their
r
respective depar
rtment, when all the litigatio
on & other steps had finally
y
concluded in the
Advertisement No.5 of 2019 C
Category No.1; now Respondent
t
No.2 without a
any cognizant reason issued
the impugned notice dated
d
14.07.2023 regar
rding biometric / facial re-verific
cation of 25 candidates for the
e
aforesaid post. Th
he said notice was issued by th
e Office of Respondent No.2 to
o
the concerned d
department of all the 25 cand
idates and the said impugned
d
notice was also
communicated to the Petitione
er through his department i.e.
.
Respondent No.4
4 vide which the Petitioner w
was directed to appear for his
s
biometric / facia
al re-verification on 25.07.2023
3 at 10 a.m. in the Office of
f
Respondent No.2
2.
6. It is s
submitted that the petitioner w
was surprised and shocked when
n
the above impug
ned notice was issued by the of
fficial Respondents because it is
s
an admitted fact
t that petitioner has already u
undergone the biometric facial
l
verification twice
e before the issuance of th
e impugned notice; and the
e
Petitioner was he
eld successful in both the merit l
ist and both the biometric facial
l
verification. Now
w Petitioner and other candidat
tes have again been forced to
o
undergo the sam
e test for the same purpose; an
nd left with no option Petitioner
r
appeared before
the Office of the Respondent N
No.2 on 25.07.2023 as per their
r
schedule and it
is further submitted that all
the biometric and fingerprint
t
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
impressions were
(O&M) - 7 -
e matched on that day and it w
was orally told by the concerned
d
persons that verif
fication is matched.
7. Ld. c
counsel further submits that pe
etitioner is in the service of the
e
official Responde
ents since more than 6 year
rs and has now become the
e
permanent empl
oyee of the Respondents and i
is covered by the Haryana Civil
l
Service Rules and
d hence, cannot be terminated
without issuance of any show
w
cause notice or o
other necessary notice required
before termination of service of
f
a permanent em
mployee and therefore, the not
ice issued to the Office of the
e
Respondent No.4
4 by the official respondents for
taking necessary action against
t
present petitione
er is unlawful and even all the st
teps and procedures vide which
h
a third notice qua
a the biometric and facial re-ver
rification issued, is arbitrary and
d
liable to be set as
side.
8. It is f
further submitted that the notic
ce dated 14.07.2023 vide which
h
the biometric /
facial re-verifiction was notif
ied to be conducted qua the
e
Petitioner does
not mention that why the o
official Respondents called the
e
Petitioner for a t
third round of verification whic
ch is unexplained, unnecessary
y
qua the Petitione
er which are under scrutiny desp
pite being successful in both the
e
merit list since 2
2019. The reason for undergoin
g the fresh step of biometric /
/
facial re-verificat
tion was not mentioned in
the impugned notice dated
d
14.07.2023, whic
h is liable to be set aside on this
s score alone.
9. It is
submitted that the impugned
d letter communicated to the
e
official Responde
ents No.4 by the official Respo
ondents for initiating necessary
y
action against the
e Petitioner on account of mism
matched biometric and facial re-
-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
verification held i
(O&M) - 8 -
in connection with impugned no
otice is not a speaking order and
d
does not mentio
on that on account of which
lapse the biometric has been
n
mismatched and
whether facial verification was
s matched or not and whether
r
before going thr
rough scrutinizing of the biom
metric and facial re-verification,
,
whether earlier
biometric and facial re-verifi
cation report was taken into
o
consideration or
not and therefore, merely com
municating to the Office of the
e
Respondent No.4
4 where the Petitioner is prese
ently employed, that necessary
y
action is required
d to be taken on account of mism
matched biometric and facial re-
-
verification is a c
completely failure of conductin
ng the various steps taken in a
a
recruitment by th
he Respondent No.2 and 3 beca
ause the official letter does not
t
contain any speak
king order and hence liable to be
e set aside on this score alone.
10. It is f
further submitted that petitione
er has availed loan facilities from
m
his banker agains
st his salary and is also maintain
ning his family and children and
after years of con
ntinuous service and despite be
eing successful in each round of
f
merit list and scr
utiny of documents as well as b
biometric and facial verification,
,
now action again
st the Petitioner amounts to reli
ieving the Petitioner on account
t
of mismatch bio
ometric verification which w
as notified to be conducted
d
arbitrarily withou
ut any cognizable reason, is agai
nst the equity and fair play and
d
strict action is lia
ble to be taken against the offi
cial Respondents on account of
f
issuance of thir
d notice for biometric and f
facial reverification and other
r
consequential pro
oceedings qua the same.
11. It is
submitted that the candida
ates have undergone through
h
videography and
photography at the time of en
ntrance and giving their written
n
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
examination and
(O&M) - 9 -
despite various options availab
le with the official Respondents
s
to verify a person
n along with biometric and facia
l verification before passing any
y
order or steps fo
or relieving of the Petitioner in
a sketchy manner, amounts to
o
miscarriage of jus
stice and non-application of min
d by the official respondents.
12. It is
accordingly prayed that the pr
resent writ petition be allowed
d
and that “ a writ i
in the nature of certiorari for set
tting aside the impugned notice
e
dated 14.07.2023
3 (Annexure P-1) issued by th
he Respondent No.2 regarding
g
biometric / re-fac
cial verification of the Petitioner
r in a third round of biometric /
/
facial re-verificati
ion and in continuance of above
impugned notice, a letter dated
d
09.11.2023 (Anne
exure P-2) vide which the recom
mendation of the petitioner has
s
been withdrawn a
and further direction has been g
given to the respondents number
r
5 and 6 by officia
al respondents to take necessar
ry action against the petitioner,
,
ignoring the fact
that the Petitioner has again j
joined his department after the
e
revised final resu
ult dated 23.06.2022 was pron
nounced and vide notice dated
d
24.06.2022 a not
tice was issued by the Respond
dent No.2 vide which they were
e
called for the bi
iometric and facial verification
n and after appearing for the
e
biometric facial v
verification in compliance of no
otice dated 24.06.2022 revised
d
final result dated
d 05.07.2022 was pronounced a
and after the pronouncement of
f
the revised final
result the Petitioner was issued
d their respective joining letters
s
and now vide im
mpugned notice and letter date
ed 14.07.2023 and 09.11.2023
3
respectively is lia
able to be to be set aside being
g arbitrary, unlawful, which is a
a
non-speaking ord
der and hence, is liable to be set a
aside.”
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
13. Per
(O&M) - 10 -
contra , ld. State counsel has
opposed submissions of the
e
petitioner and h
has contended that candidatur
re of the petitioner has been
rejected due to
mismatch of the face verificat
tion and biometric data of the
e
petitioner. Conse
equentially, impugned orders su
ffer from no error, and present
t
writ petition dese
erves to be dismissed.
14. No o
other argument is made on be
half of learned counsel for the
e
parties. I have he
eard ld. counsel and perused the
e case file and record in detail. I
I
find no merit in th
he submissions advanced on beh
half of the respondent-State.
15. It is
not disputed that in the prev
vious two biometric and facial
l
verifications, pe
titioner had passed and ha
d accordingly been declared
d
successful in the
final results dated 03.09.2020 (A
Annexure P-12) and 05.07.2022
2
(Annexure P-14)
. Pursuant to the same, pe
etitioner has admittedly been
n
appointed vide th
he letters of appointment dated
d 14.9.2020 (Annexure P-7) and
12.12.2022 (Anne
exure P-8); Whereafter the pet
titioner has been continuing in
service without b
break since 14.09.2020 i.e. for a p
period of more than six years.
16. How
wever, the respondent Commissio
on had once again, for the third
d
time, sought biom
metric and facial recognition sam
mples of the petitioner vide the
e
impugned notice
dated 14.7.2023 (Annexure P-
1). A perusal of the said notice
e
shows that no re
asons whatsoever have been gi
ven as to why a third biometric
c
and facial re-ver
rification of the petitioner is r
required/necessitated. There is
s
nothing whatsoe
ever brought on record by th
he respondents to reveal any
y
application of min
nd before issuing the impugned
notice. The impugned notice is
s
therefore unsusta
ainable as it fails to disclose any
rationale for impugned action.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
17. It is
(O&M) - 11 -
to be appreciated that petit
ioner has already successfully
y
appeared for
scrutiny of documents
and biometric and facial
l
recognition/verifi
ication on 18.12.2019, 17.5.202
22, and 27.6.2022. Each scrutiny
y
of documents an
d biometric and facial verificati
ion has been carried out at the
e
behest of the re
espondent-Commission only. E
Each time petitioner has been
n
declared successf
ful; and has consequently been
n appointed. Six years after the
e
appointment of
the petitioner, respondent-Com
mmission has, out of the blue
e
sought re-verifica
ation of the biometric details
of the petitioner. No reason
n
whatsoever is giv
ven as to why this re-verification
n is required; or as to what was
s
the lacunae in t
he previous verification that n
necessitated is showing of the
e
impugned notice
dated 14.7.2023. Even no reaso
ons are given as to why, on what
t
basis and on wha
at criteria were the particular 58/
/25 candidates identified for re-
-
verification of bio
ometric details. The impugned ac
ction, is therefore, arbitrary and
d
discriminatory, an
nd cannot be sustained.
18. None
etheless, as petitioner had don
ne nothing wrong, he had duly
y
appeared before
the concerned authorities for b
biometric and facial verification
n
rd
for the 3 time o
on 25.07.2023. However, this tim
me, as per the biometric report
t
dated 09.11.2023
3 (Annexure R-2/1), there is m
mismatch of the biometric and
d
facial recognition
n of the petitioner. No reason
ns have been assigned by the
e
Commission for t
he said mismatch. Respondents
have failed to take into account
t
the fact that it is
s possible that facial structure e
etc. may change over time and
d
therefore facial v
verification may have failed in th
his one instance. The impugned
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-8563-2024 (
orders are theref
(O&M) - 12 -
fore whimsical, and based on ch
hance and not on any verifiable
e
criteria.
19. Furth
hermore, as per Condition No. 1
19 of the Letter of Appointment
t
dated 12.12.2022
2 (Annexure P-8), appointment
of the petitioner is ‘ subject to
o
condition to the f
forensic report of biometric/sig
gnature .’ However, Respondents
s
have placed noth
hing on record to show that bio
ometric details of the petitioner
r
were sent for for
rensic verification as stipulated
d in the Letter of Appointment.
.
This factor reinfo
orces the above observation tha
at the impugned orders are not
t
based on any uni
mpeachable criteria. Thus, there
e is no sustainable reason given
n
by the responde
ents for seeking to reject ap
ppointment of the petitioner;
;
especially in view
w of the fact that admittedly
in the previous two biometric
c
verifications, peti
itioner had been successful. Co
onsequentially, impugned action
n
suffers from lack
of rationality and application o
of mind. Even further, it cannot
t
be ignored that p
etitioner has been working since
e the past 6 years.
20. Thus
s, present writ petition stands
s allowed; and the Impugned
d
Notice dated 14.0
07.2023 (Annexure P-1) and imp
pugned order dated 09.11.2023
3
(Annexure P-2) ar
re set aside.
21. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.
12.11.2026
Neelam
( N
NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
Wheth
Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document