Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: biometric data in K.Palanisamy vs The Zonal Manager on 5 February, 2021Matching Fragments
8. After notice, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, entered appearance for the Corporation. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed. According to the counter affidavit, the biometric verification was done by the Service Provider M/S TCS, an Outsourcing Agency. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had obtained qualifying marks against Agents category and therefore, he was called for interview which was scheduled on 07.11.2019. According to the counter affidavit, 42 candidates attended the interview at Thanjavur Division Office, except the petitioner, all other candidates who had undergone the biometric verification, had no problem with the verification at the venue of the interview, as the same matched https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7825 of 2020 and with the verification at the time of the written examination. The authority who was entrusted with the job of biometric verification, has certified that the biometric data of the petitioner has not matched with the biometric data taken at the time of the written examination. Therefore, he was not allowed for the interview in terms of the Instruction 14 of the Corporation dated 20.05.2019.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently submit that the Instruction issued by the Corporation was very clear that at every stage, the biometric data verification has to be conducted and unless the data verification matches with one another, no candidate will be permitted to attend the next stage of the selection. According to the learned counsel, it is an all India examination and the question of biometric machine being faulty, did not arise at all as there was no complaint from any of the centres against the biometric data verification. Therefore, the pleading of the petitioner that it was possible that the machine could have been a faulty one, is unacceptable and unsustainable also. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7825 of 2020 and
22. As stated earlier, as far as the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot perse be faulted in view of the clear instructions, which read as follows:
“14.BIOMETRIC DATA-CAPTURING AND VERIFICATION:
a. The biometric data (right thumb impression or otherwise) and photograph of the candidates will be captured and verified during the process of recruitment on the following stages:
(iv) At the time of reporting for the training b. Decision of the Biometric data verification authority with regard to its status (matched or mismatched) shall be final and binding upon the candidates.
c. Refusal to participate in the process of biometric data capturing/verification on any of the above mentioned occasions may lead to cancellation of candidature.