SHIDHODHAN BHIMRAO SHINDEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:18560-DB



                                                         10-Writ Petition No.2502 of 2025.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                WRIT PETITION NO.2502 OF 2026

            Shidhodhan Bhimrao Shinde,
            Age – 21 Years, Occ. Student,
            r/o. Pangargaon, Mudkhed,
            Dist. Nanded                                                   ..Petitioner

                        Vs.

            1.    The Union of India
                  Ministry of Home affairs,
                  Through Its Secretary.
                  North Block, New Delhi-110001.

            2.    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,
                  Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

            5.    Central Reserve Police Force,
                  Through Directorate General,
                  Block No.-1, C.G.O. Complex,
                  Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003                     ..Respondents
                                      2               10-Writ Petition No.2502 of 2025




                                    ----
Mr.Vrishabh Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr.Satej Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.Rahul Bagul, Senior Panel Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5
                                    ----

                           CORAM :    SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI &
                                      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                           DATE     : APRIL 23, 2026
JUDGMENT :-

1.          Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides.


2.           The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226

of Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to declare

his result for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central

Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and

Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau, pursuant to the advertisement issued

on 05.09.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that he possessed all the

requisite qualifications prescribed for the said post. The petitioner duly

applied and was permitted to appear for the written examination and

having cleared the same was also called for the physical efficiency test,

physical standard tests and document verifications. During the document

verification process, the biometric details of the petitioner were found to
                                      3                10-Writ Petition No.2502 of 2025



be not matching with those recorded earlier in the recruitment database.

Despite such observation, the petitioner was permitted to appear for the

medical examination which was duly conducted by the respondents.

Even, upon subsequent biometric tests, the mismatch persisted.

Consequently, the petitioner was initially declared unfit and was directed

to undergo medical re-examination.


3.    The petitioner thereafter underwent medical re-examination and

was declared fit and eligible for selection. The verification of documents

and   the   medical    examination    process    was      thus       completed.

Notwithstanding his successful completion of all stages of the recruitment

process, the respondents withheld the result of the petitioner solely on

the ground of biometric mismatch, even though the final result for other

candidates was published on 15.01.2026.


4.    According to the petitioner, the biometric mismatch is not a fault

attributable to him. 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

petitioner has therefore approached this court seeking directions to
                                        4               10-Writ Petition No.2502 of 2025



expedite the process of obtaining the forensic report and or to direct the

respondents to publish his result so that he may participate in the

forthcoming training programme likely to commence within a few weeks.


5.    The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted

that the results in relation to biometric mismatch are still awaited, and

therefore, the result of the petitioner could not be declared till the receipt

of the forensic report. During the course of the hearing, the petitioner’s

Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court that the similarly

situated candidates have preferred 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:

       “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
                                      5               10-Writ Petition No.2502 of 2025



       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.

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

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


6.    Upon making a query with the respondent’s advocate, whether the

facts of the present petition 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 petition.


7.    In light of the order dated 30th June 2025, passed by the Division

Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in Writ Petitions No.975
                                       6               10-Writ Petition No.2502 of 2025



of 2025, 976 of 2025 and 977 of 2025, this court finds that the facts and

issues involved in the present petition are identical and the ratio of the

said judgment squarely applies to the present case.


8.    Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in terms of paragraphs

8, 9 and 10, extracted above. The respondents are directed to declare the

result of the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of this order.


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




[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]             [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

                                  ………..
KBP