Biometrics Are Necessary To Eliminate Discrepancies, But Failure Of Machine To Recognize A Person Cannot Override Their Fundamental Rights: MP HC

A single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “In this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that although it is true that the biometric verification process is necessary nowadays to eliminate any discrepancy in the record, and to ensure free and fair process of selection, however, it is also true that biometric verification is not always successful in eliminating the discrepancies, like in the present case, and there are occasions when biometric verification of a candidate cannot be done due to myriads of reasons, beyond the control of the parties. In the circumstances, can it be said that only on account of failure on the part of a machine, a person's rightful claim can be rejected, and the answer is an emphatic 'no', as this Court is of the considered opinion that a person's legal and fundamental right cannot be curtailed or side-lined only on account of failure of a machine to recognize him, for whatever be the reasons.”

The present petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent - Life Insurance Corporation of India, whereby, the petitioner was informed that due to failure of his biometric verification conducted by the authority - Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and the decision taken by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of Assistant.

As per the factual matrix of the case, an advertisement was issued by the LIC, inviting applications for the appointment on the post of Assistant. The advertisement specified that a biometric verification shall be conducted by the TCS. As per the petitioner, at the time of examination, his biometric verification was conducted by the TCS and his fingerprints matched with the sample earlier provided by him. However, at the time of exit, it could not be matched. The petitioner was subsequently shortlisted, but at the time of document verification again, the petitioner's thumb impression could not be verified. Thus, the petitioner was required to sign a declaration that due to skin issues, his thumb impression could not be verified.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was merely a technical issue and the respondents have not disclosed the report of the TCS, relying on which they had rejected the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant.

The counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner has not made Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) as a party respondent, who is a necessary party, being the verification agency.

It was further submitted that the petitioner participated in the examination being aware of the terms and conditions on the basis of which examination was to be held. Further, it was clearly stipulated in Clause 11 Sub-clause (b) that the decision of biometric data verification authority with regard to its status (matched or mismatched) shall be final and binding on the candidates.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that it was not known as to what prompted the TCS to reject the petitioner's candidature, especially when at one point of time his biometric verification was successful.

With regard to the issue of TCS being the necessary party, the Court opined that TCS was merely an executing party assigned to carry out the biometric verification of the candidates appearing in the examination at the instance of LIC.

“LIC was the master, whereas TCS was the servant, and if any order is communicated by TCS to its master i.e., LIC, it was the duty of the LIC to communicate the same to the petitioner, hence, TCS is certainly not a necessary party to the lis, because even if it had been made a party, its presence could not have made any difference, as at the most, it would have contended that the biometric verification of the petitioner was unsuccessful at the time of document verification.”, the Court said.

With regard to non-furnishing of the report prepared by TCS, the Court noted that no efforts were made to obtain the report from TCS and LIC did not keep a copy of the report.

“Thus, non-furnishing of the copy of the report to the petitioner which was provided to LIC by the TCS, has led to violation of principles of natural justice and has prejudicially affected the petitioner's interest.”, the Court said.

Further with regard to the question whether such condition that biometric verification shall be binding on a candidate is concerned, the Court opined that biometric verification is not always successful in eliminating the discrepancies, thus, a person's legal and fundamental right cannot be curtailed or side-lined only on account of failure of a machine to recognize him.

“This Court is also of the considered opinion that a person's identity is not lost when he is not recognized by a machine, and in such circumstances, his claim has to be verified on the basis of the documents which he possesses regarding his identification, like Aadhaar Card, Samagra ID, Pan Card, Driving License, Passport, etc.”, the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that biometric verification by the TCS would not be binding on the petitioner.

Therefore, the Court directed the respondent to verify the petitioner's identity on the basis of the documents in his possession, and issue the appointment letter to the petitioner within four weeks' time.

The petition was hence, allowed.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Meena Versus Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Writ Petition No. 8990 Of 2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 72

Click Here To Read/Download Order