This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to re-conduct group discussion and interview for the petitioner so as to secure admission in Post Graduate Diploma in Banking and Finance Course, thereby appoint the petitioner in the post of Probationary Officer, Junior Management Grade/Scale-I in Bank of Baroda.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he, being a Civil Engineer, applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the respondent Bank through onlilne on 20.08.2016; that he was issued a hall ticket to undergo online examination; that at the online venue, the Biometric data (left thumb impression) was obtained by the Bank Officials and thereafter, he was directed to undergo Psychometric Test, in which, he was successful and thereafter, he was issued a letter dated 09.11.2016, directing him to appear before the 3rd respondent along with all original documents, where once again the Biometric data was captured and his certificates were verified; that though he was asked to wait for group discussion, subsequently, he was not allowed to participate in the same and was verbally informed by the 3rd respondent that the Biometric impression taken on 09.11.2016 is not matching with the one taken on 25.09.2016.
2.1. The further case of the petitioner is that though he has come up successful in all the examinations, on account of technical fault, he cannot be deprived of his righteous claim of getting employment and therefore, he has filed this writ petition, seeking for the above direction.
3. The respondents have filed a counter along with a copy of the sample call letter and the call letter of the petitioner. In the counter, it has been stated as follows:
i) The biometric security feature was introduced by the Bank in 2016 in order to avoid any malpractice and fraud in the recruitment process and only after verification of the biometic fingerprint, a candidate is normally allowed to participate in the Group Discussions and Personal Interview; that the petitioner was one among 4872 candidates, who were successful in the examinations and they were called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview on 09.11.2016;
ii) There were instances where biometric of candidates did not match with the one taken earlier and subsequently, there was a match when the candidates come back after washing their hands, but in the case of the petitioner, even after trying for 100 times, it did not match; that out of 4000 persons called for, only four candidates' biometric alone were not mattached; that though the petitioner participated in the examination and came out successful, due to the fact that his signature did not tally with the one taken on 25.09.2016, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the Group Discussion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the instructions given in the call letter with regard to Biometric data, which is extract below:
?5.Biometric data (left thumb impression) will be captured at the test venue. With regard to the same, please note the following:
(a) If fingers are coated (stamped ink/mehndi/coloured... etc), ensure to thoroughly wash them so that coating is completely removed before the exam day.
(b) If fingers are dirty or dusty, ensure to wash them and dry them before the finger print (biometric) is captured.
(c) Ensure fingers of both hands are dry. If fingers are moist, wipe each finger to dry them.
(d) If the primary finger (left thumb) to be captured is injured/damaged, immediately notify the concerned authority in the test centre. (Any failure to observe these points will result in non-admittance for the test).?
He would submit that there may be possibility of insoluble technical fault in the machine in capturing the fingerprint of the petitioner, for that, the petitioner cannot be victimized. Moreover, the signature found in the call letter produced by the respondent Bank differs from his actual one, as found in other documents, like the vakalath and therefore, the signature in the call letter and his actual signature has to be sent to a Fingerprint Expert for obtaining his opinion in this regard.
5. However, on a bird's eye view at the signature encrypted in the application form, affidavit of this petition as well as in the representation sent by the petitioner to the Director, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, this Court could only see the similarity in the signature and does not find any divergence, though the respondent Bank has not produced the original application form of the petitioner and therefore, there is no need for referring the signature of the petitioner to an expert. Moreover, this Court cannot go into the question of ascertaining the genuineness of the biometric machine, which has been mainly introduced by the Bank for the purpose of avoiding fraud in the selection process.
6. Hence, finding no merits in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
1. The Deputy General Manager (HRM) Bank of Baroda, Suraj Plaza-I, Sayaji Ganj, Vadodara-390 020.
2. The Head (HRM & Capacity Building) Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, Plot No.C26, ?G? Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051.
3. The Chief General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office (Chennai Metro), 10, C.P.Ramasamy, Road, II Floor, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018..