Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
Manoj Kumar – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3492 of 2014
Decided On : 20-06-2017
For the Appellant : Ashok Kumar
For the Respondents: Ghanshyam Pd. Sinha, AC to GA 6
The main legal point established in the judgment is that any benefit obtained by fraud will have its natural consequence, and admission obtained through deceit and deception cannot be legalized or legitimized.
Headnote:
Handwriting Verification - Admission Cancellation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Evidence Act - [Section 293 of the Code, Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an Office Order issued by the Examination Controller, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB), which cancelled his provisional allotment order for admission to a diploma course in engineering in Government Polytechnic (Gaya). The cancellation was based on a Forensic Science Laboratory report that found differences in the petitioner's handwriting samples taken at the time of examination and counseling.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's admission was provisional and subject to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, to which the petitioner had agreed. The court held that the petitioner's admission was obtained through deceit and deception, and therefore, his admission could not be legalized or legitimized.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the petitioner's claim of injury affecting his handwriting, and the jurisdiction of the Forensic Science Laboratory to verify handwriting samples.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Forensic Science Laboratory had the jurisdiction to verify handwriting samples and that the slight variation in handwriting due to injury was not acceptable. The court also emphasized that any benefit obtained by fraud would have its natural consequence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner's admission was obtained through fraud and therefore could not be allowed to stand.
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of Office Order, dated 17.01.2014, bearing Memo No. 114, issued by the Examination Controller, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'BCECEB'), whereby provisional allotment order for admission of the petitioner to diploma course in engineering in Government Polytechnic (Gaya) has been cancelled.
2. The petitioner had applied for Diploma Certificate Entrance Competitive Examination (DCECE), 2010, held by BCECEB. The examination was held on 25.04.2010. The petitioner claimed that he had appeared for the said test with his Roll No. 90106105. He qualified in the said examination and was called for counselling on 11.06.2010, when hand-writing sample of the petitioner was taken for the purpose of matching/tallying it with the petitioner's handwriting taken on the O.M.R. answer sheet of the said examination, on the date of examination.
3. It is noteworthy that in order to obviate any chance of impersonation in competitive entrance examination, BCECEB had been following a system in which a candidate was made to write one passage in Devnagari at prescribed space on the O.M.R. answer sheet of respective competitive examination. At the time of counselling of candidates, successful in the written examination, sample hand-writing of the candidate was taken again in the presence of the officials holding counselling. The two samples of hand-writing, one taken on the O.M.R. answer sheet on the date of examination and the other taken at the time of counselling were, thereafter matched/compared so as to ensure that both the handwritings were of the same person. In case, there appeared to be any doubt over the said hand-writings not matching, the BCECEB used to send the two samples of hand-writing to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. The candidates were, in the mean while, issued provisional allotment of a college for admission to polytechnic course, subject to final hand-writing verification report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, provided the concerned candidate submitted an affidavit stating that he would accept the decision of the BCECEB based on the hand-writing verification report, submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory.
4. This is not in dispute that the authorities, at the time of counselling found apparent difference between the sample hand-writing of the petitioner taken on the O.M.R. answer sheet at the time of examination and that obtained at the time of counselling. The matter was accordingly decided to be referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison, verification and report. The petitioner had opted admission in Civil branch of Gaya Polytechnic College, Gaya. This is also not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit at the time of counselling mentioning specifically therein as follows:-
(i) As per the procedure his specimen handwriting was obtained during the counseling and the same was compared with the handwriting on OMR Answer Sheet corresponding to his Roll Number. As per recommendation that his handwriting is not matching with the handwriting on OMR Answer Sheet corresponding to his Roll Number, the same are being sent to the FSL for verification.
(ii) In that context after being aware of every facts he swears that his provisional admission in Govt. Polytechnic Gaya will be fully covered by the final report of the FSL with respect to his handwriting verification and if the report of FSL will reveal that his specimen handwriting is not matching, his candidature based on DCECE-2010 will be cancelled and suitable legal action will be initiated against him.
(iii) He is putting his signature on this affidavit after being fully aware of the matter as mentioned in Para-1 and Para-2 above.
5. The statement to this effect has been made in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the BCECEB, which has not been denied.
6. The affidavit has been brought on record by w
