This group of Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution have been placed before us under the reference made by the learned single Judge under his order dated 6th January 2012 made on C.W.J.C. No.9747 of 2011.

2. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.9747 of 2011 is a student for three years’ diploma course in Polytechnic Engineering (P.E.) conducted by the New Government Polytechnic, Patna. The admission of the said petitioner in Diploma in Polytechnic Engineering has been cancelled by the respondent Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board on the ground of impersonation at the admission test.

3. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.17943 of 2011 is a student of M.B.B.S. course conducted by the Patna Medical College. His admission to the Medical College has been cancelled by the respondent Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board on the ground of impersonation at the admission test.

4. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.21653 of 2011 is a student of Diploma in Polytechnic at Government Polytechnic College, Purnea. His admission to the Diploma in Polytechnic has been cancelled by the respondent Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board on the ground of impersonation at the admission test.

5. It appears that at the time of examination, a specimen of handwriting of each student taking the examination was collected by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Board”). The said handwriting and the photograph of the student were compared with the writing taken at the time of interview. In respect of the students whose handwriting appeared to be doubtful, the two handwritings were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Laboratory”) for verification. In case of the above referred three writ petitioners also, the Interview Board having some doubt, the aforesaid procedure was followed. The Laboratory opined that the specimen writing and the writing on the answer-sheet were in different hands. Pursuant to the said report, their admission to the concerned course has been cancelled on the ground of impersonation. i.e. the person taking examination was not the same as the person seeking admission.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh has appeared for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9747 of 2011. Mr. Singh has submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna is not a reliable piece of evidence. He has submitted that the handwriting was sent to the Laboratory six months after the relevant date and the report was made after one year. Such a report cannot be relied upon. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Amresh Kumar Vrs. Principal, Bhagalpur Medical College, (1982 B.B.C.J. 302) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, {(2001) 1 SCC 4}.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha has appeared for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.17943 of 2011. Mr. Sinha has taken us through the record. He has submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna is not well equipped. The report made by the said Laboratory cannot be relied upon. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Amresh Kumar vrs. Principal, Bhagalpur Medical College, (1982 B.B.C.J. 302). He has further submitted that the opinion of the expert is not a gospel and is not beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and others, (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3318); of Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India & Ors. v. Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors., (A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 2091); and of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital