although the invigilators had admittedly not detected them on comparison of faces of the candidates taking the entrance test with photographs on the admit cards. It would depict that there was lapse on the part of the invigilators, intentionally or inadvertently. Even Dr. B. S. Juneja, DW-5 (invigilator), to whose cross-examination reference was made by the counsel for the appellants, has simply stated in crossexamination that they had compared the faces with admit cards by ‘ cursory glance’ . It is thus apparent that the invigilators were not very careful in making the said comparison. It is correct that the appellants herein were not detected being impersonated by somebody else while taking entrance test and, therefore, there is no direct evidence of their impersonation at the test. However, if like other six impersonators, cases of the appellants being impersonated by somebody else had been detected at the time of test itself, there would have been no controversy at all in that event. However, it cannot be said that there was no impersonation for the appellants in the entrance test, merely on the ground that their cases were not caught red handed.
