Conclusive proof of participation through video recording outweighed the forensic report, emphasizing the exceptional nature of the case and the possibility of rare errors in forensic reports.

1. In this case, petitioner has challenged the order of the Examination Controller of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board dated 15.1.2014, by which his selection for admission in Polytechnic has been cancelled and also the consequent order of the Incharge Principal of Navin Rajkiya Polytechnic, Patna vide memo no.149 dated 3.2.2014 by which his provisional admission in the said Institution has been cancelled.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the competitive examination held by the Board he had appeared and was declared successful. Thereafter, counseling was held on 15.6.2010 for allotment of seat in any Polytechnic for admission. In the counseling, petitioner was directed to write down the passage again which he had written on the OMR Sheet in examination. The Counseling Team found that his hand writing in the passage was different from the handwriting on OMR Sheet. Matter was thereafter referred to Senior Counseling Team. The Senior Counseling Team also concurred with the view of the Counseling Team and hence decided that the case of the petitioner should be referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory for an authoritative opinion with regard to his handwriting on OMR Sheet vis-à-vis his hand writing in his passage written at the time of counseling. Matter was accordingly referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

3. Since the Forensic Science Laboratory was taking some time to submit its report, petitioner submitted an application before the Examination Controller that he may be provisionally allowed admission subject to final report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. Case of the petitioner is that, after he submitted his undertaking, the counseling team allowed him to take provisional admission in Navin Rajkiya Polytechnic, Patna. Petitioner got admission there and pursued his course. It is said that in each semester petitioner passed with flying colours and was consistently a first divisioner with distinction. His result was also published. Meanwhile, a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was received in the Board in which it was reported that the handwriting on both the documents were different. After the report was received, matter was reported to the Principal of the said Polytechnic, who withheld his final result and issued notice to the petitioner, vide Annexure-6. Petitioner submitted his show cause, vide Annexure-7. In the show cause petitioner asserted that he had in fact appeared in the examination and difference of handwriting was only on account of the fact that on OMR Sheet he had written the passage in fast hand and before the Counseling Team he wrote it slowly. Matter was forwarded to the Examination Controller. The Examination Controller was not satisfied with his show cause and hence he held that this was a case of impersonation and cancelled his candidature, which was communicated to the Principal of the Polytechnic, who cancelled admission of the petitioner.

5. When the case was taken up earlier, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that petitioner had in fact appeared in the examination and videography was done of the entire examination and the candidates and the video recording may be called for verification as to whether petitioner was in fact present in the Examination Hall or not. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Board was requested by this Court to get the C.D. of video recording of the examination and produce before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the Board produced the C.D. on 6.3.2014. However, as there was no facility for playing the C.D. in Court Room, the Court fixed the matter in Chambers on the next date i.e. 7.3.2014 at 4.10 P.M. Accordingly, matter was taken up on 7.3.2014. Learned counsel for the Board produced the C.D. and with the help of Computer and Projector of the High Court, C.D. was run in presence of learned counsels for the parties and the entire recording was viewed on one of the walls of the Chambers. After view