Punjab and Haryana HC: Candidate’s HTET Result Restored After Fungal Infection Prevents Biometric

AI that prepares briefs and compliance checklists

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution where the petitioner sought the declaration of his result in the Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test (HTET) held on 16-11-2019. The petitioner, suffering from a fungal/allergic infection on his hands, had his exam result canceled due to a failure in biometric verification.

The Court, presided over by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, found the reasoning of the respondent-board to be “absolutely unsustainable and rather obnoxious,” and directed the board to declare the petitioner’s result. Additionally, the Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondent-board for its insensitive approach, which resulted in a five-year delay for the petitioner.

Background of the Case:

• In 2019, the petitioner applied for the HTET for PGT (Physical Education) Level 3.
• An admit card was issued to the petitioner after document scrutiny, allowing him to appear for the exam scheduled on 16-11-2019.
• Upon entering the examination hall, the petitioner was required to undergo biometric verification. However, due to a fungal infection/allergic reaction on his fingers, he could not complete the process.
• The petitioner immediately submitted a written request to the centre in-charge, explaining his inability to provide biometric data due to the infection and sought permission to sit for the exam.
• The centre in-charge accepted the petitioner’s request, and the petitioner took the exam with his manual thumbprints recorded on paper instead of undergoing biometric scanning.

Issues with Biometric Verification and Result Cancellation:

• The petitioner was later called before a committee for verification. However, the committee could not verify his identity due to the absence of biometric data.
• The petitioner’s result was subsequently cancelled by the respondent-board, citing the failure of biometric verification.

Respondent’s Submission:

• The respondent-board argued that the centre superintendent had erroneously permitted the petitioner to take the exam despite the failure in biometric verification.
• However, they contended that this did not entitle the petitioner to have his result declared.

Court’s Analysis and Observations:

• Committee Decision: The Court noted that a committee of four-five persons was constituted at the examination centre after the petitioner’s written request. This committee, having inspected the petitioner’s condition, made a conscious decision to allow him to take the exam, indicating that the decision was not just the centre in-charge’s error.
• Reasoning Flawed: The Court criticized the respondent-board’s reasoning as “absolutely unsustainable and rather obnoxious in nature.” The Court found it perplexing that the petitioner’s result was cancelled despite the admitted fact that the petitioner’s condition made biometric verification impossible.
• Comparison Infeasible: The Court further pointed out that even if the petitioner had provided biometric data, it could not have been compared effectively due to the lack of provisions for investigation for other candidates as well.

Court’s Decision:

• Directive to Declare Result: The Court directed the respondent-board to declare the petitioner’s result within one month.
• Exemplary Costs Imposed: The Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondent-board, citing their “insensitive attitude” that resulted in the petitioner losing five years of his career.
• Interest on Delayed Payment: The Court also stipulated that if the amount was not paid within two months, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9%.

Harjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP 3273 of 2022, decided on 05-08-2024