IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14119 of 2009 1. RITIK RAJ S/O SHRI MAHAVIR PASWAN R/O GHORGHAT, P.S- BARIARPUR, DISTT- MUNGER ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH,THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS, SECRETARY, I.A.S. ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA, AIR-PORT, PATNA-14 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION (DCECE-2008), BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, I.A.S ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIR-PORT, PATNA-14 4. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, BHAGALPUR ------------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 02 06-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 22.9.2009 and 30.8.2009 cancelling his admission in the Government Polytechnic at Bhagalpur. The petitioner was an applicant for the Course, Group P.E.(Polytechnic Engineering) and appeared at the written Competitive Examination for the same successfully. At the time of interview, he was asked to write 4-5 lines on a plain paper with his signature in English and Hindi. This was done for cross-verification of the candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced his study and has completed his first semester. The authorities , in the meantime, had called for a report from the Forensic Authority which has confirmed the difference in the hand-writing leading to the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there were legal infirmities in the forensic report. Additionally, the petitioner was - 2 - not made aware of the forensic report its nature and contents and on which basis he is sought to be condemned. Counsel for the Respondents urged that at the time of the interview the sample of the signatures and hand-writing of the petitioner were obtained. The consequences were known to him and that a report was furnished by the forensics about the difference in between the two writings. Forensic evidence is scientific evidence. Yet , the petitioner cannot be condemned unheard and unilaterally . Fairness and transparency , as also natural justice mandate that the report be first made available to him with an opportunity to meet the same. What shall be his defence and tenability of the same are not matters for this Court to speculate at this stage. Only thereafter final orders can be passed. Even in a criminal prosecution where an accused may be charged under a forensic report, he has to be given a right to defend himself and question the forensic evidence. There is no reason why the same logic shall not be applied in a civil situation. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the forensic report shall be made available to the petitioner within a week if the petitioner appears before the authority for the purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be filing his reply to the forensic report within a period of two weeks thereafter. The petitioner is himself aware of the urgency of the matter - 3 - that his academic session is also being affected. The impugned order in that present form are, therefore, set aside only for the limited purpose of furnishing of the report , consideration of the reply enabling the authorities to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in light of the aforesaid discussion with a maximum period of three weeks from the date, the petitioner furnishes his reply to the authorities . The Writ application stands allowed to the extent and manner indicated. The concluding submission for permission to attend classes in the meantime is qualified himself by the petitioner that it shall not vest any right/claim in equity or otherwise for continuance and shall squarely be dependent on the fresh final orders. The Court permits him to attend classes in the meantime on the conditions of his own undertaking. NKS/- ( Navin Sinha, J)