The Delhi High Court has upheld the cancellation of public-sector appointments after repeated biometric and photographic mismatches raised doubts about whether the people reporting for duty were the same candidates who completed the recruitment process.
The judgment covered ten petitions involving appointments to prison and administrative roles, including warder, assistant superintendent, matron, stenographer and Grade IV Delhi Administration Subordinate Service positions. Authorities reviewed fingerprint and photo records after receiving complaints about impersonation in recruitment examinations.
Several of the affected appointees underwent multiple checks. Seven cases involving the prison department were verified three times, while one person was tested five times. The record included one case in which fingerprint matching returned zero and image comparison returned 36.03 percent.
The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appointees, finding that the departments should have followed disciplinary procedures before terminating them. The High Court set those orders aside.
Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain drew a distinction between determining whether an appointment was valid and imposing punishment for alleged impersonation. The court held that identity is foundational to an appointment: if the person who joins cannot be established as the candidate who participated in the selection process, the appointment itself cannot stand.
That reasoning allowed the departments to cancel the appointments without first completing the kind of disciplinary inquiry required to establish employee misconduct. The ruling did not make a criminal or disciplinary finding that the individuals had impersonated candidates, and it did not bar them from applying in future recruitment exercises.
The decision shows how biometric evidence can function as an eligibility control rather than solely as evidence in a misconduct case. It arrives amid broader judicial scrutiny of government biometric practices in India, including a challenge to police facial recognition in Telangana.
Indian public agencies also continue to develop biometric assurance across national identity services. The Unique Identification Authority of India has sought domestic liveness and contactless fingerprint technology for Aadhaar, reflecting the growing operational importance of reliable biometric matching.
The case is Director General of Prisons and others v. Rinku Kumar and others, decided with nine related petitions.
Sources: Raw Law
–
By the ID Tech Editorial Team
