IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1095 of 2010 1. RITIK RAJ S/O SHRI MAHAVIR PASWAN R/O VILL GHORGHAT, P.S.BARIARPUR,DISTT-MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH , THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINTION 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. FOR THE PETITIONER : - MR. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADV MR. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, ADV FOR THE BCECE BOARD : - MR. VIKAS KUMAR, ADV FOR THE STATE : - MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR JHA, AC TO SC 9. ----------- 02/ 23.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board as well as State. Petitioner had appeared in the competitive examination held in the year 2008 for taking admission in the discipline of Civil in Polytechnic Engineering. He was declared successful in the written examination and in pursuance to interview letter he appeared for interview on 12.8.2008 before the Counselling Board. As per the provision mentioned in the interview letter and examination broacher, candidates are asked to write on a plain paper, same paragraph, which, he had written at the time of written - 2 - examination, in order to compare the handwriting of the candidate, for testing his genuineness. The handwriting of the petitioner was not found to be tallying with his handwriting in the examination sheet and it was declared to be doubtful. The matter as per the settled provision was referred to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of two handwritings and submit the report with the opinion of experts. Since the report of F.S.L. did not reach within the time, as such the petitioner was allotted provisional registration number for taking admission on provisional basis, with this condition that the admission will either be allowed to continue or cancelled subject to the report of the F.S.L. The Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its report vide letter no. 2074 dated 30.8.2009, whereby the handwriting and signature of the petitioner at the time of the counselling differed from handwriting and signature in the examination sheets. These were not found to be tallying with each other. Considering this report, admission of the petitioner has been cancelled, as it was found to be a case of impersonation. Challenging the cancellation order, petitioner earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. - 3 - 14119 of 2009. The writ application was allowed and the order dated 22.9.2009 contained in Memo No. 981-989 was quashed for the reason that without furnishing Forensic Science Laboratory report, to enable the petitioner to file his reply, his admission had been cancelled. The direction was issued to the respondents to supply the forensic science laboratory report to the petitioner and considering his defence, a reasoned order be passed. The reasoned order dated 31.12.2009 contained in Memo No. 3324 has been passed rejecting the defence of the petitioner and holding that it is a case of impersonation, as such in terms of Clause 15(4) of the Examination broacher petitioner’s admission is liable to be cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled on the sole ground of some adverse opinion of F.S.L., without considering that report of an expert is not conclusive proof or substantive piece of evidence. Opinion of an expert being nothing more than opinion, unless corroborated by some other evidence or material, should not have been used for cancelling admission of petitioner. - 4 - The defence, which was taken by the petitioner in his representation, has been considered in the impugned order, one by one. So far defence no. 3, which relates to F.S.L. report, has also been answered. However, the petitioner had taken this ground that on the solitary opinion of the F.S.L. expert’s report, his admission could not have been cancelled, unless it is proved by some corroborative evidence. I do not find substance in the ground taken by the petitioner for the reason that it is not a case of solitary opinion of the F.S.L. Members of the Counselling Committee raised doubt about the resemblance of handwriting of the petitioner. There were two such Committees and both were of some opinion that writing in the answer sheets and writing before the Committees were of two different persons. The petitioner was given opportunity to write and re-write the paragraph, which he claimed to have been written by him at the time of examination. He was given opportunity to put signatures differently. Since, some obvious difference were located, as such as per the settled procedure, in order to clear this doubt, the matter was referred to the F.S.L. and the opinion - 5 - of two experts were taken. In para 8 of the counter affidavit detail statement has been made, which shows that Two Committees have found the handwriting of the petitioner not tallying with the handwriting in the examination copy of the candidate. As such opinion of more than two committees as well as of two experts, contained in the F.S.L. report, was adverse. It is not a fact that without taking any precaution serious decision like cancellation of admission of a student has been taken, rather with full precaution and taking all necessary caution, finally the decision relating to cancellation of petitioner’s admission has been taken. I do not find that carelessly or arbitrarily any decision has been taken. There is no reason for interference with such decision taken by the respondent-authorities, in the impugned order. This application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)