Darshan Gorakh Patil and Others Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Others

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:30072-DB

¶2

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶3

{1}

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12450 OF 2025

¶6

Shaikh Sadik Hanif, Age: 22 Years, Occupation: Student, R/o. At Post Telki, Tq. Loha, District: Nanded – 431 707.

¶7

Gopal Kailas Chavan, Age: 23 years, Occupation : Student, R/o. At post Mandve, Kumbhari Tanda, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon. … Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Union of India, Ministry of Home affairs, Through, its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶10

The Union of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions, Through its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. 3. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, HW4P+HXP Krishna Complex, 38/4, Mundhwa, Kharadi Road, Yashwant Nagar, Kharadi Road, Pune – 411 011. 4. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lohi Road, New Delhi – 110003. ...Respondents AND

¶11

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶12

{2}

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.3579 OF 2025

¶14

Satish Khandu Patil, Age: 22 Years, Occupation: Student, R/o. At Post Shirud, Tq. Amalner, District. Jalgaon.

¶15

Nitin Dhanraj Mhaske, Age: 21 Years, Occupation : Student, R/o. At post Anakwadi, Post Purmepada, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

¶16

Harish Vikas Patil, Age: 23 Years, Occupation : Student, R/o. Tambepura, Sanenagar, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶17

Umesh Omkar Malve, Age: 22 Years, Occupation: Student, R/O. Subhash Chowk, Ward No.2, Peth Budhwar, VTC Katol, Nagpur. 5. Rushikesh Rameshwar Nilkhan Age: 24 Years, Occupation: Student, R/o. Hatgaon, Tq. Murtijapur, District: Akola. … Petitioners Versus

¶18

The Union of India, (Through Ministry of Home affairs, Govt. of India)

¶19

Central Forensic Science Laboratory, HW4P+HXP Krishna Complex, 38/4, Mundhwa, Kharadi Road, Yashwant Nagar, Kharadi Road, Pune – 411 011.

¶20

National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, 5^th Floor, NDCC-II Building, Jaisingh Road, New Delhi – 110001.

¶21

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶22

{3}
4. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lohi Road, New Delhi – 110003
5. Commandant, CISF Unit HP-BPCL, Mahulgaon, Chembur, Mumbai – 400074.	...Respondents
AND WRIT PETITION NO.7994 OF 2025
1. Darshan Gorakh Patil, Age: 24 Years, Occupation: Student, R/o. Shriram Samarth Colony, Tadepura, Tq. Jamner, District. Jalgaon.
2. Ganesh Lotan Patil, Age: 24 Years, Occupation : Student, R/o. Fapore Bk. Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Vishal Bapu Surag Age: 24 Years, Occupation : Student, R/o. Ambodetal, Tq. and Dist. Dhule.	… Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union of India, (Through Ministry of Home affairs, Govt. of India)
2. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, HW4P+HXP Krishna Complex, 38/4, Mundhwa, Kharadi Road, Yashwant Nagar, Kharadi Road, Pune – 411 011.
3. National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, 5^thFloor, NDCC-II Building, Jaisingh Road, New Delhi – 110001.

¶23

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶24

{4}

¶25

1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lohi Road, New Delhi – 110003. ...Respondents

¶26

AND

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.7993 OF 2025

¶28

Dinesh Nandlal Patil, Age: 24 Years, Occupation: Student, R/o. Dhangarwada, Post. Virwade, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. … Petitioner Versus

¶29

The Union of India, (Through Ministry of Home affairs, Govt. of India)

¶30

Central Forensic Science Laboratory, HW4P+HXP Krishna Complex, 38/4, Mundhwa, Kharadi Road, Yashwant Nagar, Kharadi Road, Pune – 411 011.

¶31

National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, 5^th Floor, NDCC-II Building, Jaisingh Road, New Delhi – 110001.

¶32

Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lohi Road, New Delhi – 110003. ...Respondents

¶33

Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners in all WPs

¶34

Mr. R.B. Bagul, Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. N.T. Bhagat, Central Government Counsel for all respective respondents in respective WPs

¶35

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATED : 15 OCTOBER, 2025

¶36

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶37

{5}

¶38

JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-

¶39

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for both the sides.

¶40

The petitioners in the respective petitions have approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to declare their results for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) in the various departments such as Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), Assam Rifles (AR), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Sashastra Seema Bal or Services Selection Board (SSB) and IndoTibetan Border Police (ITBP), pursuant to the advertisement No. 2411 of 2023, issued on 24^th November 2023. It is the case of the petitioners that they possessed all the requisite qualifications prescribed for the said post. The petitioners duly applied and were permitted to appear for the written examination and having cleared the same were also called for the physical efficiency test, physical standard tests and document verifications. During the document verification process, the biometric details of the petitioners were found to be not matching with those recorded earlier in the recruitment database. Despite such observation, the petitioners were permitted to appear for the medical examination which was duly conducted by the respondents. Even upon subsequent

¶41

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶42

biometric tests, the mismatch persisted. Consequently, the petitioners were initially declared unfit and were directed to undergo medical re-examination.

¶43

The petitioners thereafter underwent medical re-examination and were declared fit and eligible for selection. The verification of documents and the medical examination process was thus completed. Notwithstanding their successful completion of all stages of the recruitment process, the respondents withheld the result of the petitioners solely on the ground of biometric mismatch, even though the final result for other candidates was published on 14^th December, 2024.

¶44

According to the petitioners, the biometric mismatch is not a fault attributable to them. The forensic report regarding the verification of biometric data, forwarded by the respondents to the forensic department, is still awaited for a considerable time without any progress. The petitioners have therefore approached this court seeking directions to expedite the process of obtaining the forensic report and or

¶45

to direct the respondents to publish their results so that they may participate in the forthcoming training programme likely to commence within a few weeks.

¶46

The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the results in relation to biometric mismatch are still awaited, and

¶47

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶48

{7}

¶49

therefore, the results of the petitioners could not be declared till the receipt of the forensic report. During the course of the hearing, the petitioners’ Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court that similarly situated candidates have preferred a writ petition No.975 of 2025 and other companion matters before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench and those petitioners were also appearing in the same examination and for the same position. Their results were also withheld only due to the reason of biometric mismatch. He relied upon paragraph 8, 9 and 10 which reads thus:

¶50

“8. Having considered the rival submissions, it appears that it is a matter of record that the petitioners’ candidature was considered by the respondents, thereafter, the written examination conducted is also successfully cleared by the petitioners herein. Resultantly, the physical and document verification was carried out. However, but for Biometric mismatch which is conducted by the respondents themselves, which is according to us is not attributable to the petitioners herein, the petitioners have been otherwise declared successful. Therefore, in our considered view, the respondents are not justified in withholding the results since the recruitment process has commenced in the month of November 2023 and after lapse of substantial period, the respondents are not justified in withholding the results of the petitioners, to which petitioners are legitimately entitled for, in the wake of petitioners’ successfully clearing the written examination so also further act of medical re-examination conducted by the respondents. Therefore, we direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today.

¶51

Needless to state that the candidature of the petitioners deserves to be considered on their respective merit and if the petitioners are otherwise qualified.

¶52

12450-25-WP (+3).odt

¶53

{8}

¶54

The writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.”

¶55

Upon making a query with the respondents advocate, whether the facts of the present petitions and the facts before the Nagpur bench in the above order are similar. He agreed and fairly submitted that all the petitioners therein are similarly situated to the one which is before us in the present petitions.

¶56

In light of the order dated 30^th June 2025 passed by the division

¶57

bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in writ petitions No.975 of 2025, 976 of 2025 and 977 of 2025, this court finds that the facts and issues involved in the present petitions are identical and the ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the present case.

¶58

Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed in terms of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, extracted above. The respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners within 4 weeks from the date of this order.

¶59

Rule made absolute in above terms, no orders as to costs.

¶60

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶61

S P Rane

Darshan Gorakh Patil and Others v. the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Gorakh Patil and Others v. the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Sadhu Kamble and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Babu Vithoba Jagale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Maharashtra Kamgar Karmachari Thr Its Mail Majur Unit Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dagdu Omkar Narwane and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Another

Satish Khandu Patil and Others Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Others

Dinesh Nandlal Patil Vs the Union of Idnia through Ministry of Home Affairs and Others