Haryana Clerk’s Job Safe After P&H HC Sets Aside Unexplained Third Biometric Check Despite Two Earlier Passes

The petitioner applied for a Clerk post under HSSC Advertisement No. 5/2019 and was included in the final merit list published on 3 September 2020.

After the selection process was reconsidered pursuant to an order of the High Court, the petitioner underwent further document, biometric and facial verification, was declared successful in the revised result dated 5 July 2022, and received an appointment letter dated 12 December 2022.

In July 2023, HSSC directed him to undergo a third biometric and facial verification; by letter dated 9 November 2023, it withdrew its recommendation on the ground of a mismatch.

The petitioner challenged both communications, asserting that his earlier verifications had been successful and that the third verification and resulting action lacked reasons.

The State defended the action on the basis of the reported mismatch.

In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court applied the principles that administrative action must be rational, non-arbitrary and supported by application of mind, and that an adverse decision must have a sustainable basis in the record.

The Court also considered Condition No. 19 of the petitioner’s appointment letter, which made the appointment subject to a forensic report concerning biometric/signature verification; the respondents’ failure to show that the biometric details had been sent for such verification weighed against the impugned action.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited as the basis of the decision.

The petitioner had passed two rounds of biometric and facial verification and had been appointed following the revised selection process.

The notice requiring a third verification gave no reason for reopening the matter, nor did the respondents explain why the petitioner was among the candidates selected for re-verification.

Although the third verification reportedly showed a mismatch, the Commission gave no reasons for that result and did not account for the prior successful verifications or the possibility of changes in facial structure over time.

Further, the respondents produced no evidence that the biometric details had been referred for forensic verification as contemplated by the appointment condition.

The Court therefore found the action arbitrary, unsupported by rational criteria and lacking application of mind.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.