IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19683 of 2010 ARUN KUMAR, S/O LATE DWARIKA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-KURKURI, P.S.-KINJAR, DISTRICT-ARWAL. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, IAS ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIRPORT, PATNA-4. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, GAYA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Hemendra Pd. Singh, Adv. For the BCECEB : Mr.Vikas Kumar, Adv. For the State : Dr.Kumar Binode Bariar, AC to GP-VI. ------------ 4 20.01.2011 In this writ application petitioner has challenged an order dated 6.10.2010, vide Annexure-7, issued by the Examination Controller of respondent Board cancelling his admission in the Three Years Diploma Course (Electronics Engineering) in Government Polytechnic College, Gaya. Case of petitioner is that, he appeared in the competitive examination for admission in the said course held by the Board in 2008. His name appeared in the merit list as successful candidate. Therefore, he was called for counselling on 8.8.2008. During the 2 counselling, he was asked to put specimen signatures on the counseling sheet for verification with the OMR sheet which he had signed at the time of examination. At that point of time, the signatures were found similar and his identity was verified with the help of videorecording done in the examination hall also. However, in respect of his photograph, as appearing in the admit card, some doubt arose. Therefore, his case was referred to Forensic Science Laboratory for verification and report. In the meanwhile, petitioner was provisionally admitted and was granted registration number also with specific condition that in case his identity was not established his admission shall be treated as cancelled. The matter remained with the Laboratory and it is submitted that petitioner pursued his course in which he has already cleared three semesters and has secured very high marks. Finally the report of the Laboratory was received in the office of the Board in April, 2010, a copy whereof is Annexure-D with the counter affidavit of the Board. In the light of the findings of the said report, as contained in paragraph 7 and 8 of 3 the report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter his admission was cancelled by the impugned order dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure-7). Learned counsel for the Board submits that, in case of doubt with regard to identity of a candidate appearing in the examination, the matter is referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory and admission is taken conditionally with specific stipulation that in case the identity is not established the admission shall be treated as cancelled. He submits that, in many cases earlier, such admissions have been cancelled and the candidates have moved this Court and their writ applications were dismissed. He has particularly referred to orders passed in CWJC No.301 of 2010 on 2.7.2010; CWJC No.4093 of 2010 on 11.3.2010; CWJC No.1095 of 2010 on 23.7.2010 and CWJC No.11722 of 2008 on 18.9.2008. He submits that the petitioner of CWJC No.1095 of 2010, against the order of dismissal of his writ application, moved the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1589 of 2010, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench and order of learned Single Judge was affirmed. He submits that, in view of 4 these orders of this Court, it is settled that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is conclusive in the matter of identification of a candidate and the same has to be accepted by the Board and the admission of the candidate has to be cancelled if the identity is not established. This Court perused the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the petitioner and so far as petitioner’s handwriting and signature are concerned, the said report reads as follows: 7. Disputed writings and signatures in Deonagri, enclosed with red lines, stamped and marked ‘R’ and ‘R1’ are not in the handwriting of the person who wrote the specimens of writings and signatures similarly enclosed, stamped and marked ‘B’. 8. Disputed signatures in English, enclosed with red lines, stamped and marked ‘RR’ and ‘RR1’ are not in the handwriting of the person who wrote the specimens of signatures similarly enclosed, stamped and marked ‘BB’ and ‘BB1’. (Arun Kumar) The respondent Board in all fairness has also produced the photocopies of the specimen handwriting and signature of the petitioner taken at the time of counseling, which is at internal page 23 of the counter 5 affidavit as Annexure-A2 and the photocopy of the OMR sheet which the petitioner filled up at the time of examination which is at internal page 24 of the counter affidavit as Annexure- A3. Since the admitted handwriting and signature as well as the disputed handwriting and signature of the petitioner are available on record, this Court has tried to make a comparison between them. At least in respect of the petitioner, the report of the Laboratory does not show that comparison of his disputed handwriting and signature with his admitted handwriting and signature has been made letter- wise and the strokes and curvatures of individual letters have been matched. In the report it has simply been opined that two signatures ‘are not in the handwriting of the person who wrote the specimens of writings and signatures similarly enclosed’. Hence, this Court has made an attempt to compare the disputed handwriting and signature of the petitioner with the admitted handwriting and signature of the petitioner on OMR sheet. After making a comparison of the same, it appears to this Court that there is no striking difference 6 between the disputed handwriting and signature of the petitioner obtained at the time of counselling and his admitted handwriting and signature on OMR sheet. This Court finds that there is no glaring difference in the style of writing of the letters and in the strokes of the individual letters in the two sets of handwritings and signatures. Slight variation in the angle of one letter or other, here and there, cannot be held to establish that the handwritings and signatures are not of the same person. This Court finds that, so far strokes of most of the letters in the two sets of handwritings and signatures are concerned, they are somewhat similar and cannot be held to be written by different persons. This comparison this Court has made only because the report of the Laboratory, in respect of the comparison of the two sets of handwritings and signatures, as quoted above, are vague and general in nature. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the report of the Laboratory cannot be accepted as conclusive proof to hold that the petitioner had made any forgery or he was impersonated by some one else at the time of counselling or at the time of examination. The orders of this 7 Court, relied upon by learned counsel for the Board, are in the facts of the individual cases. In those orders the report of the Laboratory was accepted as sacrosanct and, therefore, the action of the Board was found to be justified. But in this case, as mentioned above, the report of the Laboratory, as quoted above, is vague and general in nature. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the said report. In the circumstances, the report of the Laboratory in respect of the petitioner as well as the impugned order of the Examination Controller of the Board, as contained in Annexure-7, are quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to pursue his course in the Institution concerned in accordance with law. The writ application is thus allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)