Biometric mismatch corroborated by expert evidence permits candidature cancellation without mandatory re-verification.

The applicant applied under the unreserved category pursuant to Employment Notification/CEN No. 02/2018 for recruitment to Group-D/Level-1 posts in the Railways. He possessed the requisite educational qualification, cleared the Computer Based Test (CBT), qualified the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and appeared for Document Verification (DV).

During DV, his biometric verification could not be completed and he was subsequently informed that his candidature had been rejected because the biometric data obtained during the CBT did not match the impressions recorded during the PET and DV.

The respondents stated that the discrepancy was considered by a Standing Committee and was thereafter confirmed by the Government Chief Finger Print Expert. They also relied on alleged discrepancies in the applicant’s handwriting and signatures at different stages, contending that the material established impersonation.

The applicant sought quashing of the rejection and an opportunity for re-verification through alternative identification methods, relying, inter alia, on Veena Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature on the basis of biometric mismatch, supported by handwriting and signature discrepancies, was arbitrary, illegal, or unsupported by evidence.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to re-verification of his identity through alternative methods such as photographs, signatures, handwriting, or videography before cancellation of his candidature.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to any direction for reservation of an advertised unreserved post pending adjudication of the Original Application.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the conditions of CEN No. 02/2018, under which candidature remained provisional throughout the recruitment process and could be cancelled at any stage upon detection of ineligibility, discrepancy, or impersonation; mere participation in the CBT, PET, or DV did not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that judicial review does not permit an appellate re-assessment of specialised expert evidence and that interference is warranted only where the decision is perverse, arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no material.

The principle in Veena Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. , concerning re-verification through alternative identification methods in cases of biometric difficulty, was held to be fact-specific and not to create an automatic right to re-verification in every case.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s candidature was provisional and subject to identity verification at every stage.

The rejection was not based merely on an automated failure of biometric authentication or a subjective Standing Committee assessment. The Government Chief Finger Print Expert specifically compared the thumb impressions from the CBT, PET, and DV stages and opined that the CBT impression did not tally with the later impressions.

This expert opinion was additionally corroborated by material discrepancies in the applicant’s handwriting and signatures.

As the applicant produced no contrary expert evidence or material demonstrating that the reports were scientifically unreliable, the Tribunal found a reasonable and objective basis for the conclusion of impersonation.

It further held that CEN No. 02/2018 did not confer a right to a second verification or require a separate show-cause notice where material identity discrepancies had been detected during the prescribed verification process.

The decision in Veena Yadav was distinguishable because the present case involved corroborative expert and documentary material beyond a mere biometric failure.

The Original Application was dismissed, the prayer for reservation of one unreserved post was rejected as consequentially unsustainable, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. No order as to costs was made.