JUDGMENT: Hiten S. Venegavkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for both the sides. 2. The petitioners in the respective petitions have approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to declare their results for the recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) in the various departments such as Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), Assam Rifles (AR), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Sashastra Seema Bal or Services Selection Board (SSB) and Indo- Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), pursuant to the advertisement No. 2411 of 2023, issued on 24 th November 2023. It is the case of the petitioners that they possessed all the requisite qualifications prescribed for the said post. The petitioners duly applied and were permitted to appear for the written examination and having cleared the same were also called for the physical efficiency test, physical standard tests and document verifications. During the document verification process, the biometric details of the petitioners were found to be not matching with those recorded earlier in the recruitment database. Despite such observation, the petitioners were permitted to appear for the medical examination which was duly conducted by the respondents. Even upon subsequent biometric tests, the mismatch persisted. Consequently, the petitioners were initially declared unfit and were directed to undergo medical re-examination. 3. The petitioners thereafter underwent medical re-examination and were declared fit and eligible for selection. The verification of documents and the medical examination process was thus completed. Notwithstanding their successful completion of all stages of the recruitment process, the respondents withheld the result of the petitioners solely on the ground of biometric mismatch, even though the final result for other candidates was published on 14 th December, 2024. 4. According to the petitioners, the biometric mismatch is not a fault attributable to them. The forensic report regarding the verification of biometric data, forwarded by the respondents to the forensic department, is still awaited for a considerable time without any progress. The petitioners have therefore approached this court seeking directions to expedite the process of obtaining the forensic report and or to direct the respondents to publish their results so that they may participate in the forthcoming training programme likely to commence within a few weeks. 5. The petitioners have therefore approached this court seeking directions to expedite the process of obtaining the forensic report and or to direct the respondents to publish their results so that they may participate in the forthcoming training programme likely to commence within a few weeks. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the results in relation to biometric mismatch are still awaited, and therefore, the results of the petitioners could not be declared till the receipt of the forensic report. During the course of the hearing, the petitioners’ Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court that similarly situated candidates have preferred a writ petition No.975 of 2025 and other companion matters before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench and those petitioners were also appearing in the same examination and for the same position. Their results were also withheld only due to the reason of biometric mismatch. He relied upon paragraph 8, 9 and 10 which reads thus: “8. Having considered the rival submissions, it appears that it is a matter of record that the petitioners’ candidature was considered by the respondents, thereafter, the written examination conducted is also successfully cleared by the petitioners herein. Resultantly, the physical and document verification was carried out. However, but for Biometric mismatch which is conducted by the respondents themselves, which is according to us is not attributable to the petitioners herein, the petitioners have been otherwise declared successful. Therefore, in our considered view, the respondents are not justified in withholding the results since the recruitment process has commenced in the month of November 2023 and after lapse of substantial period, the respondents are not justified in withholding the results of the petitioners, to which petitioners are legitimately entitled for, in the wake of petitioners’ successfully clearing the written examination so also further act of medical re-examination conducted by the respondents. Therefore, we direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Needless to state that the candidature of the petitioners deserves to be considered on their respective merit and if the petitioners are otherwise qualified. 10. The writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.” 6. 9. Needless to state that the candidature of the petitioners deserves to be considered on their respective merit and if the petitioners are otherwise qualified. 10. The writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.” 6. Upon making a query with the respondents advocate, whether the facts of the present petitions and the facts before the Nagpur bench in the above order are similar. He agreed and fairly submitted that all the petitioners therein are similarly situated to the one which is before us in the present petitions. 7. In light of the order dated 30 th June 2025 passed by the division bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in writ petitions No.975 of 2025, 976 of 2025 and 977 of 2025, this court finds that the facts and issues involved in the present petitions are identical and the ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the present case. 8. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed in terms of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, extracted above. The respondents are directed to declare the results of the petitioners within 4 weeks from the date of this order. 9. Rule made absolute in above terms, no orders as to costs.