High Court orders forensic analysis of HSSC hard discs

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 2

In a significant order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed forensic examination of data in hard discs of computers belonging to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) in the JBT teachers’ selection case.

The directions by Justice Deepak Sibal came on a bunch of petitions by Naresh Kumar and other petitioners against Haryana and other respondents for quashing the select list dated August 15, 2014.

The petitioners had contended that they were not awarded two marks for post-graduation qualifications in the initial result uploaded on the website on September 6, 2014.

The result was revised on their representations before it was uploaded again four days later. They were given the benefit of two marks for post-graduation. But, at the same time, two marks from their interview score declared earlier were reduced.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sibal noted that the change in the revised uploaded result was more than two marks in the case of some other candidates. After notice was issued, the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board, now Staff Selection Commission, filed an affidavit, stating that the change in the result was due to a computer glitch.

Two marks to be given to the petitioners for post-graduation were wrongly added in their interview score. After the mistake came to their notice, appropriate directions were issued to the computer programmer to upload the correct score.

During the course of hearing, Justice Sibal directed the commission secretary to file a specific affidavit on the step-by-step procedure for completion of the esults. The computer programmer concerned too was asked to file an affidavit.

After going through the affidavits, Justice Sibal asserted: “What is missing is an explanation with regard to the change in result in the case of candidates where the difference in originally declared result and the amended result is more than two marks”.

Justice Sibal added the court was not an expert in computer programming, but it was its responsibility to unravel the truth as the career of about 40,000 applicants was at stake.

“I find it appropriate to seek the opinion of the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, on the veracity of the explanations given by the commission and the computer programmer…”

Asking Assistant Solicitor-General Chetan Mittal to transmit the directions to the Director, Justice Sibal added: “He would also analyse the data in the hard discs/inbuilt computers of the commission, which were stated to have been used at the time of uploading of the unrevised and revised results…. The opinion of the Director be filed in this court in a sealed cover.”