IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

[1] W.P. (C) No. 803 of 2016

1. Ms. Shalini Chingtham, aged about 33 years, D/o Chingtham Bikramjit, a resident of Kwakeithel Mayai Koibi, P.O. Imphal and P.S Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur.

2. Ms. Meenakshi Chingtham aged about 30 years, D/O Chingtham Bikramjit ,resident of Kwakeithel Mayai Koibi, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

3. Shri Keisham Padameshore Singh aged about 30 years, S/O

(L) Keisham Lokendro Singh,resident of Yairipok Bishnu Naha, P.O: Yairipok, P.S: Yairipok, Manipur.

4. Shri Khoirom Sidhartha Singh aged about 28 years, S/O

Khoiram Joykumar, resident of Lalambung Makhong Khoirom Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

5. Ms. Takhellambam Meenakshi Devi aged about 35 years, D/O Takhelambam Shantikumar Singh,resident of Thangmeiband Lairenhanjaba Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

6. Shri Pradip Maibam aged about 28 years, S/O M Priyokumar Singh,resident of Lalambung Takhellambam Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

7. Shri Rajkumar Kenny aged about 25 years, S/O R.K. Kannwaljit, resident of Sagolband Bijoy Govinda, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

8. Shri Ningombam Sanjit Singh aged about 28 years, S/O N. Gojendro Singh, resident of Thoubal Ningombam, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur.

9. Shri Jammy Maisnam aged about 32 years, S/O Maisnam Bidyasagar,resident of Singjamei Chingamakha, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

10. Shri Takhellambam Rishikanta aged about 26 years, S/O Takhellambam Rajen,resident of Keishampat Mutum Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

11. Shri Thounaojam Ropeshtajit Singh aged about 28 years, S/O Th. Ibobi Singh,resident of Utlou Mayai Leikai, P.O: Nambol, P.S: Nambol, Manipur.

2

12. Shri Nongmaithem Surajkumar aged about 26 years, S/O Nongmaithem Hemanta,resident of Lairikyengbam Leikai Salam Leirak, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

13. Shri Thoudam Arunkumar aged about 25 years, S/O Th. Gulapi Singh, resident of Khurai Thoudam Lamlong, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

14. Shri Nongmaithem Bijoy Singh aged about 26 years, S/O N Birendra Singh, resident of Tera Bazar, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

15. Shri Mutum Ramakant Meetei aged about 26 years, S/O M Keshobabu Singh, resident of Tera Bazar, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

16. Ms.Binapani Devi Khongbrailatpam aged about 37 years, D/O K Gopal Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Mangjil, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

17. Ms. Hawaibam Smita Devi aged about 24 years, D/O H Biren Singh, resident of Sega Road Takhellambam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

18. Shri Irish Wahengbam aged about 28 years, S/O W Ibohal Singh, resident of Wangkhei Thokpam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

19. Shri Kshetrimayum Manichandra Singh aged about 25 years, S/O Ksh Bilabchauba Singh, resident of Mekola, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Nambol, Manipur

20. Shri Wahengbam Barni Singh aged about 25 years, S/O (L) W Raghumani Singh, resident of Kumbi, P.O: Moirang, P.S: Kumbi, Manipur

21. Shri Chandam Naoba Singh aged about 26 years, S/O Chamdam Dhabalo Singh,resident of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O: Malom, P.S: Nambol, Manipur

22. Shri Namdithiu Moita aged about 35 years, S/O Guinimang Moita, resident of Deulahlane Imphal, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Deulahlane, Manipur

23. Ms. Sushmita Thiyam aged about 25 years, D/O Thiyam Arunkumar, resident of Uripok Ningthoukhongjam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

24. Shri Hidangmayum Geetchandra Sharma aged about 29 years, S/O H Shyamkeshor Sharma,resident of Nambol Awangjiri, P.O: Nambol, P.S: Nambol, Manipur

3

25. Ms. Monika Thounaojam aged about 26 years, D/O Th Gopal Singh, resident of Keishamthong, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

26. Ms. Singam Saroja Devi aged about 27 years, D/O Singam Saroja Devi, resident of Canchipur, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

27. Ms. Naoroibam Monica aged about 24 years, D/O N Momon, resident of Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

28. Shri Kimy Phurailatpam aged about 27 years, S/O Ph Ratan Sharma, resident of Porompat, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

29. Shri Ngaithem Banin Meitei aged about 32 years, S/O Ngaithem Thaba Meitei, resident of Yumnam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

30. Shri Karam Jotin Khuman aged about 29 years, S/O (L) Karan Kumar Khuman, resident of Kyamgei Mamang Leikai, P.O: Canchipur, P.S: Irilbung, Manipur

31. Shri Jimpaul Samukcham aged about 33 years, S/O S Budibanta Singh, resident of Wangkhei Ayangpalli Road, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

32. Shri Taorem Basanta Meetei aged about 34 years, S/O T Inaobi Meitei, resident of Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

33. Shri Oinam Pamheiba aged about 27 years, S/O Oinam Rajen, resident of Kongba Kshetri Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

34. Shri Shamulailatpam Saranjoy aged about 26 years, S/O Sh Ranjan Sharma, resident of Khurai Chingangbam leikai, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

35. Shri Surendrakumar Yendrembam aged about 26 years, S/O Yendrembam Bijoy Singh, resident of Changangei, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

36. Shri Gyandeep Rajkumar aged about 27 years, S/O R.K. Sashibhusan Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

4

37. Shri Lisham Henthoiba aged about 32 years, S/O Lisham Bagindra, resident of Pishum Nigom Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

38. Shri Khullakpam Akhtar Hussain aged about 24 years, S/O Kh Ziauddin, resident of Lilong Makha Leikai, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur

39. Ms. Chungkham Anita Devi aged about 34 years, D/O Chungkham Birendra Singh, resident of Wangkhei Lourembam Leikai, P.O: Wangkhei, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

40. Am. Abid Hussain aged about 21 years, S/O Abdus Samad, resident of Lilong Chaobok Mairenkhul, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur

41. Md. Mustaque Khan aged about 28 years, S/O Md Abdul Gaffar, resident of Lilong Chingkham Makha, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur

42. Shri Ningthoujam Roshnikumar Singh aged about 28 years, S/O N Mangi Singh, resident of Lamphel Sanakeithel, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

43. Wangmayum Muktar Rahaman aged about 28 years, S/O W Najimuddin Shah, resident of Oinam Sawombung, P.O: Wangoi, P.S: Wangoi, Manipur

44. Shri M Nilamani Singh aged about 30 years, S/O M Shyamo Singh,resident of Lamphel RIMS Road, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

45. W Dearson aged about 30 years, S/O W Gobardhan, resident of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

46. Shri G Tarunkumar Sharma aged about 36 years, S/O G Mukherjee Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

47. Shri Alexeyev Thingbaijam aged about 24 years, S/O Th Babudhon Singh, resident of Top Awang Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

48. Ms. Langpoklakpam Doleswori aged about 27 years, D/O L Jayentakumar Singh, resident of Pishumthongkhong, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

49. Shri Langpoklakpam Joychandra Meitei aged about 29 years, S/O L Jayentakumar Singh, resident of Pishumthongkhong, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

5

50. Shri Aribam Devakishwar Sharma aged about 26 years, S/O Aribam Lokeshwar Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

51. Shri Hijam George aged about 27 years, S/O H Renu Devi, resident of Uripok Polem Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur

52. Shri Hijam Clington Luwang Aged About 22 Years, S/O H Renu Devi, resident of Uripok Polem Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal-West, Manipur

53. Shri Ngangbam Bidyasagar Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Ng Naba Singh, resident of Thoubal Leishangthem, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur

54. Shri Ph. Dinesh Chandra Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Late Ph Surendra Singh, resident of Uripok Takhellambam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

55. Shri Heskey Meinam Aged About 24 Years, S/O Meinam Suranjoy Singh, resident of Porompat Soibam Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

56. Shri Mayanglangbam Nelson Singh Aged About 32 Years, S/O Mayanglangbam Kunjabihari Singh, resident of Sagolband Meino Leirak , P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur

57. Shri Laishram Amarjit Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Laishram Shanti Singh, resident of Khurai Ningthoubung Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

58. Shri Kshetrimayum Birosh Singh Aged About 30 Years, S/O ,resident of Singjamei Kongba Road, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

59. Shri Sh Surjit Singh Aged About 31 Years, S/O , resident of Singjamei, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

60. Shri Aguigai Kahmei Aged About 33 Years, S/O Kalinguang Kahmei, resident of Happy Villa Tamenglong, P.O: Tamenglong, P.S: Tamenglong, Manipur

61. Shri Laishram Rajesh Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Laishram Sharat Singh, resident of Pangantabi Makha Leikai, P.O: Kakching , P.S: Sugunu, Manipur

62. Shri Henry Haobam Aged About 28 Years, S/O Haobam Iboyaima Singh, resident of Lairenhanjaba Leikai Thangmeiband, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

6

63. Shri Sapam Ammo Singh Aged About 28 Years, S/O Sapam Mohendro Singh, resident of Singjamei Sapam Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

64. Shri Jemson Laishram Aged About 33 Years, S/O Brojendro Singh Laishram, Resident of Heirangoithong Bazar, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

65. Ms. Keisham Geetarani Devi Aged About 35 Years, D/O Keisham(O) Maipakpi, resident of Sagolband Tera Khuraijam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

66. Shri M Nipinchandra Singh Aged About 29 Years, S/O M Joychandra Singh, resident of Mayengbam Porompat Thawanthaba, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

67. Shri Kangjam Rakesh Singh Aged About 30 Years, S/O Kangjam Sarat Singh, resident of Kodompokpi Mayai Leikai, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Nambol, Manipur

68. Shri Keisham Kishan Singh Aged About 27 Years, S/O Late Keisham Kadam Singh, resident of Singjamei Waikhom Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

69. Shri Rishikanta Mayengbam Aged About 25 Years, S/O Mayengbam Gojendra, resident of Porompat Thawantha, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

70. Shri Mangsatabam Pamheiba Meitei Aged About 26 Years, S/O Mangsatabam Gojendra, resident of Soibam Leikai Old Checkon, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

71. Shri Shougaijam Debajit Singh Aged About 27 Years, S/O Sh Dorendrajit Singh, resident of Canchipur, P.O: Canchipur, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

72. Shri Ghanashyam Usham Aged About 28 Years, S/O Usham Dhananjoy Singh, resident of Thangmeiband Lourungpurel, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

73. Shri Sarangthem Vivek Aged About 31 Years, S/O Sarangthem Prafullo Singh, Resident of Singjamei Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

74. Shri Homeshwor Nameirakpam Aged About 31 Years, S/O N Gopeshwor Singh, resident of Chingamathak Nameirakpam Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

75. Shri Yumnam Lalit Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Y Neta Singh, resident of Yumnam Leikai Chingamathak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

7

76. Shri Sorokhaibam Brajakumar Singh Aged About 35 Years, S/O (L) S Amubi Singh, resident of Uripok Achom Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

77. Shri Nongthongbam Padameshwar Singh Aged About 32 Years, S/O N Nabachandra Singh, resident of Luwangsangbam Makha Leikai, P.O: Mantripukhri, P.S: Heingang, Manipur

78. Shri Syed Anas Aged About 28 Years, S/O (L) Syed Najiruddin, resident of Kshetri Bengoon Mayai Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

79. Md. Nawaj Sharif Aged About 24 Years, S/O Md Abdul Latif, resident of Lilong Haoreibi Low Manga, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur

80. Shri Kumojeet Thokchom Aged About 28 Years, S/O Th Imo Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Thokchom Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

81. Shri Ghanshyam Mandingbam Aged About 29 Years, S/O M Ibomcha Singh, resident of Khurai Ningthoubung Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

82. Shri Shoibam Anilkumar Singh Aged About 25 Years, S/O Sh Tomba Singh, resident of Thoubal Achouba, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur

83. Shri Sougrakpam Pipikasana Aged About 27 Years, S/O (L) S Indrajit, resident of , P.O: Langjing, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

84. Shri Khundrakpam Jasper Singh Aged About 27 Years, S/O (L) Kh Apabi Singh, resident of Keishamthong Hodam Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

85. Ms. Kh Hemabati Aged About 30 Years, D/O (L) Kh Apabi Singh, resident of Kyamgei, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

86. Shri Sanabam Micheal Singh Aged About 25 Years, S/O S Manglem Singh, resident of Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

87. Shri Bishwajit Singh Khomdram Aged About 25 Years, S/O Kh Ingomacha Singh, resident of Singjamei Chingamakha, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur

88. Shri Yumlembam Surjit Singh Aged About 41 Years, S/O Y Kunjo Singh, resident of Kongba Makha Nandeibam Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Irilbung, Manipur

8

89. Shri L Sandeep Aged About 32 Years, S/O L Binod Bihari Singh, resident of Mitra Samaj Leirak Lamboikhongnangkhong, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

90. Shri Ayekpam Bhaskar Aged About 26 Years, S/O A Samungou Singh, resident of Changangei Mayai Leikai, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

91. Shri Laishram Athouba Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O L Babudhon Singh, resident of Samurou Bazar, P.O: Wangoi, P.S: Wangoi, Manipur

92. Shri Oinam Noren Singh Aged About 31 Years, S/O O Khomei Singh, resident of Oinam Sawombung, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Wangoi, Manipur

93. Shri Yumlembam Henba Singh Aged About 29 Years, S/O Y Rajmani Singh, resident of Thangmeiband Hijam Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

94. Ms. Rinabai Salam Aged About 35 Years, D/O Salam Naba Meetei, resident of Singjamei Chingamathak Pisum Makhong, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

95. Shri Sanjitkumar Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Th Ngouba Singh, resident of Mayang Imphal Than Maning, P.O: Mayang Imphal, P.S: Mayang Imphal, Manipur

96. Md. Abdul Sameer Aged About 28 Years, S/O Abdur Rajak, resident of Kshetri Bengoon Mayai Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

97. Shri Akoijam Premchand Singh Aged About Years, S/O Akoijam Kumar Singh, resident of Taobungkhok, P.O: Langjing, P.S: Patsoi, Manipur

98. Shri Mangshatabam Chinglemba Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Mangshatabam Manglem Singh, resident of Thangmeiband, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

99. Shri Angom Ngamsing Meetei Aged About 26 Years, S/O Angom Pushkor Meetei, resident of Wangkhei Thambalkhong, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur

100. Shri Khundrakpam Kulbushan Singh Aged About 30 Years, S/O Kh Sumita Devi, resident of , P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur

101. Shri Khwairakpam Munindra Singh Aged About Years, S/O Kh Kiran Kumar, resident of Singjamei Torban Kshetri Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur

9

102. Shri Laishram Amarjit Singh aged about 28 years, S/O L Tomba Singh,resident of Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O: Mayang Imphal, P.S: Mayang Imphal, Manipur

103. Shri Rajkumar Tenzing Meetei Aged About 30 Years, S/O Rajkumar Moti, resident of Sagolband Meino Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

104. Shri Irom Nirmal Singh Aged About 28 Years, S/O Irom Dwijamani Singh, resident of Kairang, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Heingang, Manipur

105. Shri Kangabam Pritam Aged About 30 Years, S/O K Nareskumar Singh, resident of Keishampat Thiyam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

106. Shri Joychandra Loukrakpam Aged About 25 Years, S/O L Shyam Singh, resident of Thoubal, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur

107. Shri Atom Bijendro Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Atom Iboyaima Singh, resident of Thoubal Achouba Bazar Makha, P.O: Thoubal , P.S: Thoubal , Manipur

108. Ms. Beetu Hanglem, Aged About 32 Years, D/O H Meghachandra Singh, resident of Wahengbam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur

109. Shri Pangambam Yaitongba Aged About 28 Years, S/O P Ibopishak Singh, resident of Irilbung, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Irilbung, Manipur.

110. Shri Kongbrailatpam Lakshmikumar Sharma aged about 26 years, s/o K. Brajakumar Sharma, resident of Awangkhunou Maning Leikai, P.O: Langjing, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur

111. Shri Sagolshem Sarat Chandra aged about 34 years, S/O

Sagolshem Brajakishore,resident of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

…….Writ Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its

Secretary.

2. The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/Secretary D.P, Government of Manipur.

10

3. Sri James Konsam, aged about 25 years, S/o Konsam Gopal

Singh, a resident Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Imphal West, Manipur.

4. Sri Sadique Siddiki, aged about 25 years, S/o Latif Siddiki, a

resident of Yairipok Tullihal, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, District Thoubal, Manipur-795103.

5. Thongbram Bimolchand, aged about 43 years, S/o T. Jugin

Singh, a resident of Keirenphabi, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur-795133.

6. Shri Moirangthem Gautam, aged about 35 years, S/o M.

Joykumar, a resident of Uripok Gopalji Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

7. Ms. Premanandi Okram, aged about 33 years, D/o Okram

Govardhan, a resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

8. Shri L. Bhagat Singh, aged about 27 years, S/o L. Birendra

Singh, a resident of Brahmapur Bheigabati Leikai Tensubam Leirak, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

9. Ms. Pusam Salma, aged about 29 years, D/o Md.Rasid Ali, a resident of Checkon, K.R. lane, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,

District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

10. Ms. Pubashree Sanglakpam, aged about 27 years, D/o S. Gourikumar Sharma, A resident of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

11. Ms. Gaitri Thangjam, aged about 27 years, D/o Th. Bimolchandra, a resident of Singjamei Sougrakpam Leikai,

P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District Imphal West, Manipur.

12. Ms. Sapam Nirva Devi, aged about 25 years, D/o S. Nimaichand Singh, a resident of khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East,

Manipur-795010.

13. Sonia Haobijam, aged about 31 years, D/o H. Shantikumar, a resident of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal West, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

14. Shri Yumnam Lawrence, aged about 29 years, S/o Y. Gunamani Singh, a resident of Wangkhei Keithel Asangbi, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

11

15. Ms. Moirangthem Anju Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o M. Joy Singh, a resident of Khuman Leikai, Near INA Road,

P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur.

16. Ms. Sujata Thokchom, aged about 25 years, D/o Thokchom Lukhoi Singh, a resident of Nilakuthi, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East,

Manipur.

17. Shri Dhiraj Karan Khumanthem, aged about 24 years, S/o Dhiren Khumanthem, a resident of Thangmeiband DMC Gate, P.O. Lamphel, P.S.Imphal, District Imphal West,

Manipur-795004.

……….Respondents

[2] W.P. (C) No. 817 of 2016

1. Shri Laishram Deban Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Laishram Mohon Singh, resident of Khangabok Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur – 795138.

2. Shri Chittaranjan Laiphrakpam, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Yaima Laiphrakpam, resident of Kakwa Laiphrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.

3. Shri Dineshchandra Salam, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri

Salam Kumar Singh, resident of Thanga Salam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur – 795133.

4. Shri Thoudam Chittaranjan Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o

Shri Th. Chitachaoba Singh, resident of Wangoi Thiyam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur-795009.

5. Shri Bobonkanta Yumnam, aged about 30 years, S/o Dr. Bijoy Yumnam, resident of Singjamei Mathak Thokchom Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

6. Shri Yumnam Nonglen Meetei, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Yumnam Ibochou Meetei, resident of Naorem Leikai, P.O. Manipur University, P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

7. Shri Khoirom Yaiphaba Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Kh. Raghumani Singh, resident of Singjamei, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur – 795001.

12

8. Shri Khumanthem Seilesh Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Khumanthem Ningthemton Singh, resident of Langol, near Shija Hospital, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

9. Shri Thangjam Supreme Singh, aged about ---- years, S/o Shri Thangjam Sundaram Singh, resident of Singjamei Wangma Mongkhang Lambi, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur–795008.

10. Ms. Muktabali Chandam, aged about 31 years, D/o Shri Chandam Bikram Singh, resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.

……. Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC), represented through its Secretary, MPSC, near 2nd Battalion Manipur Rifles, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur – 795001.

2. The State of Manipur, represented through its Chief Secretary, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur-795001.

3. The Commissioner/Secretary (D.P.), Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat, Imphal, Manipur-795001.

4. Shri James Konsam, aged about 34 years, S/o Konsam Gopal, a resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

5. Shri Sadique Siddiki, aged about 25 years, S/o Latif Siddiki, a resident of Yairipok Tulihal, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, Disrtict Thoubal, Manipur- 795103.

6. Tongbram Bimolchand Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o T. Jugin Singh, a resident of Keirenphabi, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District-Bishnupur, Manipur-795133.

7. Shri Moirangthem Gautam, aged about 35 years, S/o M. Joykumar, a resident of Uripok Gopalji Leirak, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

8. Ms. Premanandi Okram, aged about 33 years, D/o Okram Govardhan, a resident of Uripok Sinam Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Lamphel, District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.

9. Shri L. Bhagat Singh, aged about 27 years, S/o L. Birendra Singh, a resident of Brahmapur Bheigyapati Leikai,

13

Tensubam Leirak, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

10. Ms. Pusam Salma, aged about 29 years, D/o Md. Rashid Ali, resident of Checkon, K.R. Lane, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

11. Ms. Purbashree Sanglakpam, aged about 27 years, D/o S. Gourikumar Sharma, resident of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphel & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

12. Ms. Gaitri Thangjam, aged about 27 years, D/o Th. Bimolchandra, resident of Singjamei Sougrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District Imphal West, Manipur.

13. Ms. Sapam Nirva Devi, aged about 25 years, D/o S. Nimaichand Singh, resident of Khurai Chingangbam Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

14. Sonia Haobijam, aged about 31 years, D/o H. Shantikumar, resident of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphel, P.S. Imphal West, District-Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

15. Shri Yumnam Lawrence, aged about 29 years, S/o Y. Gunamani Singh, resident of Wangkhei Keithel Asangbi, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District Imphal East, Manipur-795010.

16. Ms. Moirangthem Anju Devi, aged about 31 years, D/o M. Joy Singh, resident of Kumam Leikai, near INA Road, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.

17. Ms. Sujata Thokchom, aged about 25 years, D/o Thokchom Lukhoi Singh, resident of Nilakuthi, P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur.

18. Shri Dhiraj Karan Khumanthem, aged about 24 years, S/o Dhiren Khumanthem, resident of Thangmeiband DMC Gate, P.O. Lamphel & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

…….Respondents.

[3] W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2017

1. Ms. Shalini Chingtham, aged about 33 years, D/o Chingtham Bikramjit, a resident of Kwakeithel Mayai Koibi, P.OImphal and P.S Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur.

14

2. Ms. Meenakshi Chingtham aged about 30 years, D/O Chingtham Bikramjit,resident of Kwakeithel Mayai Koibi, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

3. Shri Keisham Padameshore Singh aged about 30 years, S/O

(L) Keisham Lokendro Singh,resident of Yairipok Bishnu Naha, P.O: Yairipok, P.S: Yairipok, Manipur.

4. Shri Khoirom Sidhartha Singh aged about 28 years, S/O

Khoiram Joykumar, resident of Lalambung Makhong Khoirom Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

5. Ms. Takhellambam Meenakshi Devi aged about 35 years, D/O Takhelambam Shantikumar Singh,resident of Thangmeiband Lairenhanjaba Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur

6. Shri Pradip Maibam aged about 28 years, S/O M Priyokumar Singh,resident of Lalambung Takhellambam Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

7. Shri Rajkumar Kenny aged about 25 years, S/O R.K. Kannwaljit, resident of Sagolband Bijoy Govinda, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

8. Shri Ningombam Sanjit Singh aged about 28 years, S/O N. Gojendro Singh, resident of Thoubal Ningombam, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur.

9. Shri Jammy Maisnam aged about 32 years, S/O Maisnam Bidyasagar,resident of Singjamei Chingamakha, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

10. Shri Takhellambam Rishikanta aged about 26 years, S/O Takhellambam Rajen,resident of Keishampat Mutum Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

11. Shri Thounaojam Ropeshtajit Singh aged about 28 years, S/O Th. Ibobi Singh,resident of Utlou Mayai Leikai, P.O: Nambol, P.S: Nambol, Manipur.

12. Shri Nongmaithem Surajkumar aged about 26 years, S/O Nongmaithem Hemanta,resident of Lairikyengbam Leikai Salam Leirak, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

13. Shri Thoudam Arunkumar aged about 25 years, S/O Th. Gulapi Singh, resident of Khurai Thoudam Lamlong, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

14. Shri Nongmaithem Bijoy Singh aged about 26 years, S/O N Birendra Singh, resident of Tera Bazar, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

15

15. Shri Mutum Ramakant Meetei aged about 26 years, S/O M Keshobabu Singh, resident of Tera Bazar, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

16. Ms.Binapani Devi Khongbrailatpam aged about 37 years, D/O K Gopal Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Mangjil, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

17. Ms. Hawaibam Smita Devi aged about 24 years, D/O H Biren Singh, resident of Sega Road Takhellambam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

18. Shri Irish Wahengbam aged about 28 years, S/O W Ibohal Singh, resident of Wangkhei Thokpam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

19. Shri Kshetrimayum Manichandra Singh aged about 25 years, S/O Ksh Bilabchauba Singh, resident of Mekola, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Nambol, Manipur.

20. Shri Wahengbam Barni Singh aged about 25 years, S/O (L) W Raghumani Singh, resident of Kumbi, P.O: Moirang, P.S: Kumbi, Manipur.

21. Shri Chandam Naoba Singh aged about 26 years, S/O Chamdam Dhabalo Singh,resident of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O: Malom, P.S: Nambol, Manipur.

22. Shri Namdithiu Moita aged about 35 years, S/O Guinimang Moita, resident of Deulahlane Imphal, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Deulahlane, Manipur.

23. Ms. Sushmita Thiyam aged about 25 years, D/O Thiyam Arunkumar, resident of Uripok Ningthoukhongjam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

24. Shri Hidangmayum Geetchandra Sharma aged about 29 years, S/O H Shyamkeshor Sharma,resident of Nambol Awangjiri, P.O: Nambol, P.S: Nambol, Manipur.

25. Ms. Monika Thounaojam aged about 26 years, D/O Th Gopal Singh, resident of Keishamthong, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

26. Ms. Singam Saroja Devi aged about 27 years, D/O Singam Saroja Devi, resident of Canchipur, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

27. Ms. Naoroibam Monica aged about 24 years, D/O N Momon, resident of Khurai Puthiba Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

16

28. Shri Kimy Phurailatpam aged about 27 years, S/O Ph Ratan Sharma, resident of Porompat, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

29. Shri Ngaithem Banin Meitei aged about 32 years, S/O Ngaithem Thaba Meitei, resident of Yumnam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

30. Shri Karam Jotin Khuman aged about 29 years, S/O (L) Karan Kumar Khuman, resident of Kyamgei Mamang Leikai, P.O: Canchipur, P.S: Irilbung, Manipur.

31. Shri Jimpaul Samukcham aged about 33 years, S/O S Budibanta Singh, resident of Wangkhei Ayangpalli Road, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

32. Shri Taorem Basanta Meetei aged about 34 years, S/O T Inaobi Meitei, resident of Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur..

33. Shri Oinam Pamheiba aged about 27 years, S/O Oinam Rajen, resident of Kongba Kshetri Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

34. Shri Shamulailatpam Saranjoy aged about 26 years, S/O Sh Ranjan Sharma, resident of Khurai Chingangbam leikai, p.o: Lamlong, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

35. Shri Surendrakumar Yendrembam aged about 26 years, S/O Yendrembam Bijoy Singh, resident of Changangei, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

36. Shri Gyandeep Rajkumar aged about 27 years, S/O R.K. Sashibhusan Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

37. Shri Lisham Henthoiba aged about 32 years, S/O Lisham Bagindra, resident of Pishum Nigom Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

38. Shri Khullakpam Akhtar Hussain aged about 24 years, S/O Kh Ziauddin, resident of Lilong Makha Leikai, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur.

39. Ms. Chungkham Anita Devi aged about 34 years, S/O Chungkham Birendra Singh, resident of Wangkhei Lourembam Leikai, P.O: Wangkhei, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

40. Am. Abid Hussain aged about 21 years, S/O Abdus Samad, resident of Lilong Chaobok Mairenkhul, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur.

17

41. Md. Mustaque Khan aged about 28 years, S/O Md Abdul Gaffar, resident of Lilong Chingkham Makha, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur.

42. Shri Ningthoujam Roshnikumar Singh aged about 28 years, S/O N Mangi Singh, resident of Lamphel Sanakeithel, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

43. Wangmayum Muktar Rahaman aged about 28 years, S/O W Najimuddin Shah, resident of Oinam Sawombung, P.O: Wangoi, P.S: Wangoi, Manipur.

44. Shri M Nilamani Singh aged about 30 years, S/O M Shyamo Singh,resident of Lamphel RIMS Road, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

45. W Dearson aged about 30 years, S/O W Gobardhan, resident of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai, P.O: Lamlong, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

46. Shri G Tarunkumar Sharma aged about 36 years, S/O G Mukherjee Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

47. Shri Alexeyev Thingbaijam aged about 24 years, S/O Th Babudhon Singh, resident of Top Awang Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

48. Ms. Langpoklakpam Doleswori aged about 27 years, D/O L Jayentakumar Singh, resident of Pishumthongkhong, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

49. Shri Langpoklakpam Joychandra Meitei aged about 29 years, S/O L Jayentakumar Singh, resident of Pishumthongkhong, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

50. Shri Aribam Devakishwar Sharma aged about 26 years, S/O Aribam Lokeshwar Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

51. Shri Hijam George aged about 27 years, S/O H Renu Devi, resident of Uripok Polem Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

52. Shri Hijam Clington Luwang Aged About 22 Years, S/O H Renu Devi, resident of Uripok Polem Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal-West, Manipur.

53. Shri Ngangbam Bidyasagar Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Ng Naba Singh, resident of Thoubal Leishangthem, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur.

18

54. Shri Ph. Dinesh Chandra Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Late Ph Surendra Singh, resident of Uripok Takhellambam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

55. Shri Heskey Meinam Aged About 24 Years, S/O Meinam Suranjoy Singh, resident of Porompat Soibam Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

56. Shri Mayanglangbam Nelson Singh Aged About 32 Years, S/O Mayanglangbam Kunjabihari Singh, resident of Sagolband Meino Leirak , P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

57. Shri Laishram Amarjit Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Laishram Shanti Singh, resident of Khurai Ningthoubung Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

58. Shri Kshetrimayum Birosh Singh Aged About 30 Years, S/O ,resident of Singjamei Kongba Road, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

59. Shri Sh Surjit Singh Aged About 31 Years, S/O , resident of Singjamei, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

60. Shri Aguigai Kahmei Aged About 33 Years, S/O Kalinguang Kahmei, resident of Happy Villa Tamenglong, P.O: Tamenglong, P.S: Tamenglong, Manipur.

61. Shri Laishram Rajesh Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Laishram Sharat Singh, resident of Pangantabi Makha Leikai, P.O: Kakching , P.S: Sugunu, Manipur.

62. Shri Henry Haobam Aged About 28 Years, S/O Haobam Iboyaima Singh, resident of Lairenhanjaba Leikai Thangmeiband, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

63. Shri Sapam Ammo Singh Aged About 28 Years, S/O Sapam Mohendro Singh, resident of Singjamei Sapam Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

64. Shri Jemson Laishram Aged About 33 Years, S/O Brojendro Singh Laishram, Resident of Heirangoithong Bazar, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

65. Ms. Keisham Geetarani Devi Aged About 35 Years, D/O Keisham(O) Maipakpi, resident of Sagolband Tera Khuraijam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

66. Shri M Nipinchandra Singh Aged About 29 Years, S/O M Joychandra Singh, resident of Mayengbam Porompat Thawanthaba, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

19

67. Shri Kangjam Rakesh Singh Aged About 30 Years, S/O Kangjam Sarat Singh, resident of Kodompokpi Mayai Leikai, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Nambol, Manipur.

68. Shri Keisham Kishan Singh Aged About 27 Years, S/O Late Keisham Kadam Singh, resident of Singjamei Waikhom Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

69. Shri Rishikanta Mayengbam Aged About 25 Years, S/O Mayengbam Gojendra, resident of Porompat Thawantha, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

70. Shri Mangsatabam Pamheiba Meitei Aged About 26 Years, S/O Mangsatabam Gojendra, resident of Soibam Leikai Old Checkon, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

71. Shri Shougaijam Debajit Singh Aged About 27 Years, S/O Sh Dorendrajit Singh, resident of Canchipur, P.O: Canchipur, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

72. Shri Ghanashyam Usham Aged About 28 Years, S/O Usham Dhananjoy Singh, resident of Thangmeiband Lourungpurel, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

73. Shri Sarangthem Vivek Aged About 31 Years, S/O Sarangthem Prafullo Singh, Resident of Singjamei Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

74. Shri Homeshwor Nameirakpam Aged About 31 Years, S/O N Gopeshwor Singh, resident of Chingamathak Nameirakpam Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

75. Shri Yumnam Lalit Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Y Neta Singh, resident of Yumnam Leikai Chingamathak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

76. Shri Sorokhaibam Brajakumar Singh Aged About 35 Years, S/O (L) S Amubi Singh, resident of Uripok Achom Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

77. Shri Nongthongbam Padameshwar Singh Aged About 32 Years, S/O N Nabachandra Singh, resident of Luwangsangbam Makha Leikai, P.O: Mantripukhri, P.S: Heingang, Manipur.

78. Shri Syed Anas Aged About 28 Years, S/O (L) Syed Najiruddin, resident of Kshetri Bengoon Mayai Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

79. Md. Nawaj Sharif Aged About 24 Years, S/O Md Abdul Latif, resident of Lilong Haoreibi Low Manga, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Lilong, Manipur.

20

80. Shri Kumojeet Thokchom Aged About 28 Years, S/O Th Imo Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Thokchom Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

81. Shri Ghanshyam Mandingbam Aged About 29 Years, S/O M Ibomcha Singh, resident of Khurai Ningthoubung Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

82. Shri Shoibam Anilkumar Singh Aged About 25 Years, S/O Sh Tomba Singh, resident of Thoubal Achouba, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur.

83. Shri Sougrakpam Pipikasana Aged About 27 Years, S/O (L) S Indrajit, resident of , P.O: Langjing, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

84. Shri Khundrakpam Jasper Singh Aged About 27 Years, S/O (L) Kh Apabi Singh, resident of Keishamthong Hodam Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

85. Ms. Kh Hemabati Aged About 30 Years, D/O (L) Kh Apabi Singh, resident of Kyamgei, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

86. Shri Sanabam Micheal Singh Aged About 25 Years, S/O S Manglem Singh, resident of Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

87. Shri Bishwajit Singh Khomdram Aged About 25 Years, S/O Kh Ingomacha Singh, resident of Singjamei Chingamakha, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Singjamei, Manipur.

88. Shri Yumlembam Surjit Singh Aged About 41 Years, S/O Y Kunjo Singh, resident of Kongba Makha Nandeibam Leikai, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Irilbung, Manipur.

89. Shri L Sandeep Aged About 32 Years, S/O L Binod Bihari Singh, resident of Mitra Samaj Leirak Lamboikhongnangkhong, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

90. Shri Ayekpam Bhaskar Aged About 26 Years, S/O A Samungou Singh, resident of Changangei Mayai Leikai, P.O: Tulihal, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

91. Shri Laishram Athouba Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O L Babudhon Singh, resident of Samurou Bazar, P.O: Wangoi, P.S: Wangoi, Manipur.

92. Shri Oinam Noren Singh Aged About 31 Years, S/O O Khomei Singh, resident of Oinam Sawombung, P.O: Lilong, P.S: Wangoi, Manipur.

21

93. Shri Yumlembam Henba Singh Aged About 29 Years, S/O Y Rajmani Singh, resident of Thangmeiband Hijam Leikai, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

94. Ms. Rinabai Salam Aged About 35 Years, D/O Salam Naba Meetei, resident of Singjamei Chingamathak Pisum Makhong, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

95. Shri Sanjitkumar Singh Aged About 34 Years, S/O Th Ngouba Singh, resident of Mayang Imphal Than Maning, P.O: Mayang Imphal, P.S: Mayang Imphal, Manipur.

96. Md. Abdul Sameer Aged About 28 Years, S/O Abdur Rajak, resident of Kshetri Bengoon Mayai Leikai, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

97. Shri Akoijam Premchand Singh Aged About Years, S/O Akoijam Kumar Singh, resident of Taobungkhok, P.O: Langjing, P.S: Patsoi, Manipur.

98. Shri Magshatabam Chinglemba Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Mangshatabam Manglem Singh, resident of Thangmeiband, P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

99. Shri Angom Ngamsing Meetei Aged About 26 Years, S/O Angom Pushkor Meetei, resident of Wangkhei Thambalkhong, P.O: Porompat, P.S: Porompat, Manipur.

100. Shri Khundrakpam Kulbushan Singh Aged About 30 Years, S/O Kh Sumita Devi, resident of , P.O: Lamphel, P.S: Lamphel, Manipur.

101. Shri Khwairakpam Munindra Singh Aged About Years, S/O Kh Kiran Kumar, resident of Singjamei Torban Kshetri Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

102. Shri Laishram Amarjit Singh aged about 28 years, S/O L Tomba Singh,resident of Mayang Imphal Thana Wangkhei Leikai, P.O: Mayang Imphal, P.S: Mayang Imphal, Manipur.

103. Shri Rajkumar Tenzing Meetei Aged About 30 Years, S/O Rajkumar Moti, resident of Sagolband Meino Leirak , P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

104. Shri Irom Nirmal Singh Aged About 28 Years, S/O Irom Dwijamani Singh, resident of Kairang, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Heingang, Manipur.

105. Shri Kangabam Pritam Aged About 30 Years, S/O K Nareskumar Singh, resident of Keishampat Thiyam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

22

106. Shri Joychandra Loukrakpam Aged About 25 Years, S/O L Shyam Singh, resident of Thoubal, P.O: Thoubal, P.S: Thoubal, Manipur.

107. Shri Atom Bijendro Singh Aged About 24 Years, S/O Atom Iboyaima Singh, resident of Thoubal Achouba Bazar Makha, P.O: Thoubal , P.S: Thoubal, Manipur.

108. Ms. Beetu Hanglem, Aged About 32 Years, D/O H Meghachandra Singh, resident of Wahengbam Leikai, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal, Manipur.

109. Shri Pangambam Yaitongba Aged About 28 Years, S/O P Ibopishak Singh, resident of Irilbung, P.O: Singjamei, P.S: Irilbung, Manipur.

110. Shri Kongbrailatpam Lakshmikumar Sharma aged about 26 years, s/o K. Brajakumar Sharma, resident of Awangkhunou Maning Leikai, P.O: Langjing, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

111. Shri Sagolshem Sarat Chandra aged about 34 years, S/O Sagolshem Brajakishore,resident of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O: Imphal, P.S: Imphal West, Manipur.

…….Writ Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The Manipur Public Service Commission through its Secretary.

2. The Director, Manipur Judicial Academy.

3. Shri P. Milan Khangamcha, Head in Charge, Department of Philosophy, Manipur University, Canchipur, Imphal.

…….Respondents.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH

For the petitioners :: Ms. G. Pushpa, Advocate, Dr. R.K. Deepak, Advocate, Ms. Girija Jain, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Dhanaraj, Advocate, Ms. Lucy Koikholam, Advocate, Mr. Kh. Radhesana, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Angom, Advocate. For the respondents :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. A.G.,

Mr. A. Bimol, Advocate for the MPSC, Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate.

23

Mr. R.K. Banna, Advocate, Mr. S. Sasi, Advocate, Mr. H. Prabirkumar, Advocate, Mr. A. Golly, Advocate, Mr. H. Suraj, Advocate, Mr. A. Peter, Advocate, Mr. S. Rubikar, Advocate, Ms. H. Meera Chanu, Advocate, Ms. N. Victina, Advocate.

Dates of hearing :: 23.01.2017 & 25.01.2017

Date of Reserving Judgment :: 25.01.2017

Date of Judgment :: 28.02.2017.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Ms. G. Pushpa and R.K. Deepak, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel for the MPSC. Also heard Mr. N.

Ibotombi, learned Addl. A.G. for the State respondents and Mr. M. Rarry,

learned counsel for the private respondents.

[2] Considering the commonality of the issues involved and reliefs

claimed in these two writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 803 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No.

817 of 2016, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Other related petition, W.P.(C) No. 60 of 2017 is also disposed along with

these two petitions.

[3] The writ petition, W.P.(C) 803 of 2016 has been filed by 111

petitioners who are some of the unsuccessful candidates who had appeared

in the Main Examination of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive

Examinations, 2016 conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission

(MPSC). They have sought for a direction for instituting a high level probe to

investigate into the manner of examinations and for fresh checking and

scrutiny under a separate and independent body other than the MPSC as the

manner of evaluation of papers, tabulation of marks and procedure of

scrutiny were done in a hasty manner.

[4] The other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 817 of 2016 has been also

filed by 10 unsuccessful candidates. In the said petition, they are also

24

seeking the similar reliefs and for quashing/cancellation of the Main

Examination of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive

Examinations, 2016.

[5] The Manipur Public Service Commission has vehemently

opposed these 2 (two) writ petitions by filing affidavits-in-opposition. Some

of the successful candidates in the main examinations numbering 15 have

impleaded themselves in these 2 (two) writ petitions in defence of the

examinations so conducted and contested the claims of the petitioners.

[6] The MPSC had issued an advertisement dated 29.12.2015 for

holding the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examinations, 2016

by following the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination

Rules, 2010 for recruitment to 82 posts in various categories of Manipur Civil

Service Grade II, Manipur Police Service Grade II, Sub Deputy Collector,

Manipur Secretariat Service/Section Officer, Election Officer. For various

reasons, not germane to the core issues involved here, the said examinations

were postponed. Ultimately, the Preliminary Examination was held on

3.7.2016 and the results announced on 8.7.2016 declaring 1160 candidates

to have passed. The Main Examinations were held from 4.9.2016 to

23.9.2016 and results of the same were declared on 4.10.2016. The

petitioners who were not successful in the Main Examinations have thereafter

filed these petitions. The viva voce tests were held from 17.10.2016 to

22.10.2016 but the final results were not declared by the MPSC because of

interim orders passed by this Court. Subsequently, this Court by order dated

21.12.2016 allowed declaration of the final results. It was however, directed

that no appointment can be made without the leave of the Court.

[7] The petitioners have raised several pleas in challenging the

results of the written tests of the Manipur Civil Services Combined

Competitive (Main) Examinations, 2016.

It has been contended, inter alia, by the petitioners that,

(i) The results of the Manipur Civil Services Combined

Competitive (Main) Examinations, 2016 were declared

25

post haste, which itself is indicative of mala fide exercise

on the part of the MPSC.

It has been contended that though on earlier

occasions, the MPSC took more than a month to declare

the results of the written Main Examinations, this time, it

took only 10 days from the conclusion of the written

examinations in which 1068 candidates appeared which

involves evaluation of about 9040 answer scripts only in

just 10 days.

It is the contention of the petitioners that since

the actual declaration of the results from the conclusion

of writing of examination involves a series of processes

of codification, verification, evaluation, scrutiny,

tabulation, de-codification etc., the results of the written

tests could not have been declared in such a short

period of 10 days.

(ii) It is also the contention of the petitioners that though

there was clear instruction to the candidates that no

extra sheets will be provided under any circumstances,

extra sheets were given to many of the candidates, thus

violating the instructions.

(iii) The other plea raised by the petitioners was that there

were irregularities in not evaluating the papers

simultaneously as provided under Note – ii of Section

II(B) under Chapter II of the Manipur Civil Services

Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010.

(iv) It has been also pleaded that there was no moderation

and scaling of marks contrary to the guidelines laid down

by the Supreme Court in this regard in the matter of

competitive examinations conducted by the public

service commissions.

(v) It has been also contended that there were contradictory

provisions for syllabus and questions.

26

(vi) It was also pleaded that there were questions which

were out of syllabus and some of the questions were

wrong.

(vii) It has been also alleged that there were no

categorisation of the candidates belonging to General,

OBC, SC, ST, etc. as regards the qualifying marks of

General English papers of the Main Examinations which

is against precedent.

[8] The defence of the MPSC in brief, as regards the first plea, is

that the MPSC could complete the process of evaluation of the answer scripts

within a short period of time by engaging more manpower and by beginning

the evaluation process right from the next day of starting the examination

and by calling the experts from the next day of starting the examination and

also by calling the experts for evaluation in the Commission’s office. Only in

such cases where the number of answer sheets for a particular subject were

very few and the evaluators were not readily available, those answer sheets

were taken out personally by the Secretary to the experts outside for

evaluation and brought back after completion of evaluation. In such a

manner, the Commission could complete the process of evaluation within

such a short span of time. In order to substantiate this stand the MPSC has

annexed a brief note showing the number of days taken in evaluation of the

answer sheets as Annexure D/3 to their affidavit in opposition.

The said brief note also indicates the number of experts

employed, number of answer scripts evaluated and the number of days

taken in evaluation. It is with reference to the aforesaid brief note that the

petitioners have stated that in respect of Essay Paper, that service of only 1

(one) expert was utilised to evaluate 1063 answer scripts who took 14 days

to complete the same. Hence, he could evaluate 75.9 answer scripts on

an average in a day which according the petitioners is not humanly

possible.

27

Similarly, in respect of Education Paper – I, there was only 1

(one) expert who evaluated 881 answer scripts in 13 days, thus evaluating

on an average 67.8 answer scripts.

As per the said information, 71 answer scripts of Political

Science Paper – I were examined by one expert for 4 (four) days, thus

averaging 35.5 answer scripts in a day.

Similarly, 178 answer scripts of Geography Paper – I were

examined by 1 (one) expert for 5 (five) days, thus averaging 70.8 answer

scripts in a day.

[9] On the other hand, the petitioners contended that in a

competitive examination of this kind which requires proper application of

mind by the evaluators, it would be humanly impossible to properly and

judiciously scrutinise so many answer scripts ranging from 35 to 76 in a day

by an evaluator. If such had been done as claimed by the MPSC, it would be

plainly absurd and would be without proper application of mind on the part

of the examiner which would vitiate the examination.

In order to fortify this plea of the petitioners, it has been

contended that in other examination systems as conducted by the Council for

Higher Secondary Education, National Institute of Open Schooling, etc. the

maximum answer scripts given to each evaluator is not more than 25. Thus

ordinarily, not more than 25 answer scripts are given to the evaluators so as

to give reasonable time to the evaluators to scrutinise the answer scripts by

proper application of mind.

It has been also submitted on behalf of the petitioners basing

on certain study conducted that the average reading speed of English

language is 228 words per minute. The petitioners contend that, therefore, in

such a situation, the evaluators could not have properly scrutinised so many

answer scripts ranging from 35 to 76 in a day without compromising with the

quality of evaluation.

[10] The MPSC has vehemently opposed the submissions of the

petitioners contending that evaluation of such a large number of answer

28

scripts was possible considering the large manpower utilised to support the

experts particularly at the stage of codification, scrutiny, tabulations,

decodification etc. and also the long time allotted to the evaluators. It has

been also submitted that since the questions to be answered are limited, the

evaluators become more familiar with the pattern of answers of the

candidates which enhances the speed of evaluation. In other words, it is

possible to evaluate so many answer scripts as had been done without

compromising with the quality of evaluation, as they are experts and also

highly experienced in their respective disciplines.

[11] The MPSC also submitted that since many of the candidates

had answered many common questions, the evaluators could easily gradually

understand the pattern of answers as the evaluation progresses which also

speeds up the evaluation process. In this regard, Mr. Bimol Ld. Counsel for

the MPSC referred to the chart showing the common questions answered by

the candidates in General English II (Essay), Education Paper-I,

Geography Paper – I, Paper - II.

It has been accordingly, submitted that the examination

procedure had been scrupulously followed by maintaining strict

confidentiality.

[12] The stand of the private respondents, who are the successful

candidates in the written test of the Mains Examination, is also the same. Mr.

Rarry, Ld. Counsel for the private respondents relied on a study undertaken

by one Researcher in the University of Missouri – Kansas City to demonstrate

that the speed of reading while reading silently is higher than reading aloud.

According to that study, one can read silently words upto 340 per minute

and what the petitioners had referred to relates to a study relating to reading

aloud when the speed is slower. Hence, it has been submitted that the study

relied upon the petitioners is not appropriate for the present case.

Mr. Rarry also submitted that even in the examinations

conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, the rate of scrutiny of

the answer scripts is very high. Yet, nobody had complained about it. The

29

private respondents have also relied on certifications of experienced teachers

to demonstrate that it is possible to evaluate 70/80 answer scripts in a day.

[13] On the other hand the petitioners contended that since the

examination system involves a series of processes, viz., codification,

evaluation, scrutiny to verify whether all the answers have been evaluated or

the marks have been correctly added by the evaluators, de-codification,

tabulation which were undertaken by different sets of experts/officials, it

would certainly be a time consuming process. For example, evaluation of

Public Administration Paper– I and II having 499 and 496 answer scripts

respectively was completed on 3.10.2016 and the results of the Main

Examination were declared in the morning of 4.10.2016, which according to

the petitioners cannot be done with proper application of mind by the

functionaries. It was submitted that apart from the actual evaluation, the

other processes would add up to more time before finalising and declaring

the results.

It was also submitted that codification itself is a time

consuming process as it involves the manual process of entering dummy

numbers on the answer scripts and tearing off a portion of the answer script

containing the actual roll number and entering the dummy number of the

candidate on the answer scripts. Unless, the process of codification is

complete, the evaluation cannot start. Further, codification can start only

after the answer sheets are verified with the attendance sheets/roll number

of the candidates. Thereafter, only after de-codification and tabulation the

final result can be declared.

It was also submitted that employing a large number of experts

as claimed by the MPSC increases the possibility of manipulation and

compromises with the confidentiality of the examination system.

[14] It was submitted by the petitioners that while in some subjects

the experts evaluated an unbelievably large number of answer scripts

ranging from 35 to 76 in a day, in some subjects, the answer scripts were

evaluated in a leisurely manner thus allowing them to apply their mind

30

properly. In such situations, there should have been proper scaling of marks

of candidates writing papers in different disciplines.

[15] Regarding the allegation that no announcements were made in

any of the examination halls permitting extra sheets to be taken by

candidates, it had been submitted by the petitioners that assuming but not

admitting that such announcements were made, it should have been done

before the examination commenced so that the examinees would have a

clear understanding and implication of the announcement. It had been also

submitted that there was no certainty even amongst the invigilators as to

whether giving extra sheets would be permissible or not, because of which

many examinees for fear of being penalised did not seek any additional

answer sheet and tried to squeeze their answers within the 34 sheets

provided. Because of this many of the candidates did not utilise all the

answer sheets and left some blank portions.

It has been also submitted that even if the announcements

were made after the commencement of the examination on 4.9.2016, it

should have been at least notified or uploaded in the official website of the

MPSC thereafter, which was not done, thus clearly indicating that there was

no verbal announcement as claimed by the MPSC.

[16] As regards this issue raised by the petitioners that the

examination instructions for not supplying extra sheets had been violated by

the MPSC, it has been contended by the MPSC that such violation has not

caused any prejudice to the petitioners. It was also pleaded that it was

announced through the invigilators at the beginning of the written

examination that the candidates could take extra answer sheets. The MPSC

as well as the private respondents have also taken plea that some of the

petitioners also took extra answer sheets which were not disclosed in the

writ petitions and hence, the petitioners have not approached this Court with

clean hands.

[17] Considering the issues raised and doubts raised in the mind of

the candidates about the functioning of the MPSC, the Court felt the

31

necessity of perusing the records maintained by the MPSC including the

answer scripts for arriving at a satisfaction that the contentions of the MPSC

in the face of the allegations of the petitioners, need not be doubted. The

Court also felt that on the other hand, if it is shown that the evaluation

within such a short period of time by the evaluator(s) is not plausible or not

practicable in the context of the arrangement made by the MPSC, it may call

for relook into the entire examination system.

[18] While adopting such an approach, this Court took into

consideration the decision in BSNL v. Surendra Nath Pandey, (2011) 15

SCC 81 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

“.........It is settled beyond cavil that the decisions taken by the competent authority could be corrected provided it is established that the decision is so perverse that no sensible person, who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. The aforesaid principle is based on the ground of irrationality and is known as the Wednesbury principle. The court can interfere with a decision, if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken such a decision......”

Similarly, in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1

SCC 478, the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicated the scope of scrutiny by the

Court by holding that,

“19. “Wednesbury principle of reasonableness” to which reference has been made in principle (5) aforementioned as contained in Associated Provincial Picture

Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn7. In that case Lord Greene, M.R. has held that a decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the court concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably

could have reached it. In Tata Cellular6 this Court, has mentioned two other facets of irrationality:

(1) It is open to the court to review the decision-maker’s evaluation of the facts. The court will intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decision-maker. If the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be upheld.

(2) A decision would be regarded as unreasonable if it is partial and unequal in its operation as between different classes.”

6 : (1994) 6 SCC 651

7: (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680

32

[19] As regards the issue relating to supply of extra-sheets during

the written examination, this Court also felt it appropriate to ascertain from

the records available with the MPSC and procedure adopted by the MPSC as

to how this decision was taken to allow extra sheets to the candidates and

the circumstances in which the decision was taken and when and how it was

made known to the candidates and whether it had materially affected the

results of the examinations in any manner.

As regards the plea that there was improper evaluation and

there was no scaling of marks or moderation of evaluation, this Court also

felt the need to verify from the records as to whether moderation and scaling

of marks had been adopted by the MPSC in the present examinations and if

so, how they were undertaken.

[20] Since such an examination by this Court would have involved

perusing hundreds of answer scripts in the background of the system put

into place by the MPSC and arrangements made, this Court proceeded to

avail the help of a Court appointed neutral body/Commissioner to undertake

this exercise on behalf of the Court to ascertain whether in the facts and

circumstances of the case as pleaded by the MPSC and by adopting the

Wednesbury principles, it was reasonable for the evaluators to have

examined so many answer scripts within such a short period of time

mentioned by the MPSC in a manner expected of in a competitive public

service examination for recruitment to the prestigious posts in the state and

also ascertain about the allowing of extra-sheets and about the moderation

and scaling of marks.

[21] In adopting such course of action, this Court was also mindful

of the limitations of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. It is now a settled position of law that normally, the

Court ought to avoid taking up matters which involves disputed facts.

However, the Supreme Court also observed that if, on consideration of the

nature of the controversy, the High Court decides that it should go into a

disputed question of fact and the discretion is exercised by the High Court in

conformity with judicial principles, it may be permissible to undertake such

33

an exercise as was held in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal

Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706, wherein it was stated that,

“The object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. Power has consequently been vested in the High Courts to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any government, within the jurisdiction of the High Court, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. It is plain that if the procedure of a suit had also to be adhered to in the case of writ petitions, the entire purpose of having a quick and inexpensive remedy would be defeated. A writ petition under Article 226, it needs to be emphasised, is essentially different from a suit and it would be incorrect to assimilate and incorporate the procedure of a suit into the proceedings of a petition under Article 226. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right of relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is no doubt discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition (see Gunwant Kaur v.

Municipal Committee,Bhatinda1). If, however, on consideration of the nature of the controversy, the High Court decides, as in the present case, that it should go into a disputed question of fact and the discretion exercised by the High Court appears to be sound and in conformity with judicial principles, this Court would not interfere in appeal with the order made by the High Court in this respect.”

1: AIR 1970 SC 802

[22] While opting for this course of action, this Court also kept in

mind the fact that there are certain public institutions whose credibility

depends to a large extent on the confidence reposed by the public at large.

The Manipur Public Service Commission is one such institution which is a

constitutional body created under Article 315 of the Constitution of India.

34

Sufficient constitutional safeguards have been provided to maintain its

integrity and independence, as regards appointment and security of tenure

of the members of the Commission so that the Public Service Commission

can function without any influence from any quarter and discharge their

functions independently. The Public Service Commission performs very

important functions, and is generally consulted by the State Government on

all matters relating to the methods of recruitment to civil services and civil

posts, principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and

posts including promotions and transfers, disciplinary matters relating to civil

servants and various other important matters. In that context, this Court felt

that if certain public doubts have been raised about the functioning of the

Commission, all endeavours should be made to clear such doubts from the

mind of the public, and it would only enhance its credibility.

[23] In the present case, certain genuine doubts had arisen in the

mind of the examinees about the expeditiousness with which the results

were declared and about certain aspects of the examination as discussed

above. Hence, the Court felt that dispelling such doubts by examining the

functioning of the Commission in the particular instance, would be a

desirable exercise. It was in that context that this Court decided to proceed

to examine the evaluation and other co-related processes, which was

primarily to satisfy the Court itself about the credibility of the allegations

made in the face of denial by the Manipur Public Service Commission, more

particularly, relating to the evaluation of the answer scripts, as discussed

above and not by way of a roving enquiry.

[24] Accordingly, for this purpose, this Court requested the Director,

Manipur Judicial Academy, a Retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court, to be

the Commissioner, who in his discretion could appoint any other expert(s) for

his assistance to undertake the exercise.

[25] For undertaking this exercise, the Commissioner was authorised

to examine all the relevant documents and papers and also examine such

persons, officials or evaluators involved in the entire exercise of evaluation,

beginning with co-dification upto the final stage of tabulation and declaration

35

of the results of the Written Examinations and the Commissioner could have

access to the answer scripts of all the candidates as the Commissioner

considered appropriate, including the answer scripts in respect of Essay

Paper, Education Paper-I, Education Paper-II, Political Science Paper-I, Public

Administration Paper-II, Geography Paper-I & II, General Studies Paper-I

etc., by maintaining confidentiality of the identity of the evaluators and such

persons and confidential procedure as may be deemed necessary at the time

of submitting the report before this Court. The MPSC was directed to extend

full cooperation to the Commissioner for undertaking the aforesaid exercise.

The Commissioner was requested to submit the report by 13th January, 2017

containing its observations and remarks in a sealed cover to this Court. This

Court, accordingly, passed the order on 21.12.2016 for the aforesaid

purpose.

[26] In terms of the order passed on 21.12.2016 by this Court, the

Commissioner submitted his report on 13.01.2017 and copies of the same

were furnished to the counsel for the respective parties and were heard.

[27] As the said Report would have a direct bearing on the decision

of this Court and issues raised in these petitions, this Court felt that it may

be appropriate to reproduce the said Report.

[28] The Report reads as follows :

“REPORT

Dated 13.01.2017

Submitted by M. Binoykumar Singh, Director, Manipur Judicial Academy after an enquiry as required by the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur vide order, dated 21.12.2016 in c/w W.P(c) No. 803 of 2016 & W.P(c) No. 817 of 2016.

Your Lordship,

1. In pursuance of the order dated 21.12.2016 in c/w W.P(c) No. 803 of 2016 & W.P(c) No. 817 of 2016, I, the undersigned, have made the required enquiry.

2. During the said enquiry, I along with Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha, Head of Philosophy Department, Manipur University and Shri N. Brajakanta Singh, lecturer, Manipur Judicial Academy, who were appointed to assist me in the enquiry, visited the office of Manipur Public Service

36

Commission on 27th, 28th& 29th December 2016 and also on 2nd& 11th January 2017 during office hours. We inspected the strong room where the answer scripts of Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2016 and other related confidential document in c/w the examination were found kept in proper order. We were shown by the Secretary, MPSC and his P.A in presence of the Addl. Secretary, MPSC as to how random numbers/code numbers were chosen in respect of roll numbers of the candidates in the said examination by using a computer, how decoding could be done and also as to how code numbers could be written on the concerned answer scripts by utilising the services of properly instructed staff members efficiently within a short time without compromising confidentiality about the matter. We also examined and inspected answer scripts of the writ petitioners as well the selected candidate on random basis to find out if there was anything on the basis of which one might reasonably opine that the answer scripts had not been evaluated properly.

3. While examining and inspecting the said answer scripts we also tried to find out if there was anything on the basis of which one could infer reasonably that any of the writ petitioners had been prejudiced as a result of not providing extra paper by the officials of the examination.

4. We also inspected the marks tabulation sheets and other relevant documents to ascertain if there was anything showing manipulation or irregularities.

5. Apart from all that we examined and recorded the statement of the evaluator of General English Paper II, Essay in order to ascertain how he had managed to evaluate more than about 75 answer scripts on an average in a day. We also obtained a written statement of the Secretary, MPSC in respect of various facts connected with the said examination and relevant in the enquiry.

We could not examine the Chairman of the MPSC as he had already retired on 7.11.2016 and now residing outside the state. There was no other member of the MPSC. All the evaluators were from outside state. Apart from the evaluator of Essay paper,we did not ask to cause presence of the other evaluators as we did not consider it necessary as we had examined the evaluator who had evaluated the largest number answer scripts single handedly.

6. I requested both Dr. Milan and Shri Brajakanta to submit their respective independent opinion and views on the basis of their respective observations and findings in the enquiry as regard the controversies in between the writ petitioners on one side and the MPSC and the selected candidates in the said examination on the other side. The said independent opinions of the two experts are also enclosed herewith.

37

7. On the basis of the materials before me and my observation during the enquiry, I ascertained that the number of candidates who actually appeared in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination 2016 did not remain same throughout the said examination. On the 1st day i.e. on 04.09.2016 in the General English Paper I, in the forenoon, 1068 candidates appeared in the examination. On the same day in the afternoon in respect of General English Paper II Essay, 1063 candidates appeared. On the last day i.e. on 23.09.2016 in the General Studies Paper only 989 candidates appeared. In respect of some optional papers such as Zoology, Education, Civil Engineering, Botany, Manipuri, Public Administration and Geography, the number of candidates who appeared in Paper II was less than the number of candidates who appeared in Paper I by 1, 2 or 3.

8. The series of activities like assignment of a random number (five digit code) in respect of a particular roll number, writing of the code number on the answer script bearing the relevant roll numbers, tearing off the portion of the answer script bearing roll number and taking care for maintaining confidentiality as regard the process undertaken before the handing over of the answer scripts to the concerned evaluator as well as the act of evaluation were not kept pending till the end of the examination of the last paper. There is no rule to the effect that the essential process and evaluation of answer scripts of completed examination should not be initiated till the end of the examination of the last paper.

9. As per statement of the Secretary, MPSC as soon as the examination of General English Paper I was over on 04.09.2016, the attendance of the candidates was checked and found 1068 candidates having appeared in the subject. Therefore, using software, random numbers of five digit codes were generated and assigned one code for each roll number on the computer under his supervision. Thereafter, print out of the master copy containing roll number and corresponding code number was taken and both hard and soft copies were kept in the strong room under the double lock. The subsequent codes were prepared from the master copy based on the attendance in each subject only in the presence of the Secretary/Addl. Secretary, MPSC.

10. The process/activities of writing codes on the answer scripts and of removing the portion of answer scripts having names, roll numbers were undertaken by six officials of the commission, who were briefed by the Secretary of the commission on 05.09.2016, in the confidential room of the commission. According to the Secretary of the commission, three pairs of two officials each were assigned with the duties – one reading out the code number and the other one writing it on the answer script and removing the portion containing roll number from the answer script. The removed portions of the answer scripts were kept inside the strong room in bundles along with the code numbers under the supervision

38

of the Secretary/Addl. Secretary. Subject wise score sheets containing only code numbers were prepared and kept along with the answer sheets in the strong room and were supplied to the evaluators for evaluation after arranging the answer scripts in packets.

11. According to the Secretary, MPSC, the generation of the codes and assigning those codes to the roll numbers took around half an hour. There is no reason to have any doubt in this regard.

12. Further, as per statement of the Secretary, the average time taken by one pair of two officials in writing, verifying and tearing off the portion containing roll number etc. in respect of 50 answer scripts was about half an hour. The time said to have taken is quite reasonable and as such it is believable. At that rate, the three pairs of two officials each must have been able to complete the said formalities in respect of 300 answer scripts in an hour. Accordingly, in completing the said formalities in respect of 1068 answer scripts the said three pairs would have taken about between 3.30 to 4 hours. When the number of answer scripts was only 989, lesser time must have been taken in completing the necessary formalities.

13. There was no requirement that the necessary formalities should be completed in respect of all answer scripts of a subject before starting evaluation of any of the answer scripts of the subject. Whenever the necessary formalities/process in respect of 50/60 or 70 answer scripts of a subject were completed, evaluation in respect of them could be started if the concerned evaluator was available.

14. It was ascertained that only in respect of Education Paper I, the evaluation of the answer scripts of the said paper was started on the day of examination. The examination of Education Paper I was held on 11.09.2016 and the evaluation of paper was found to have been started on 11.09.2016 itself. In respect of General Studies Papers I & II and Political Science Paper I & II, the evaluations were started on the very next day of the respective date of examination of the said subjects. The examination of General Studies Paper I was held on 23.09.2016 in the forenoon (from 9 AM to noon) and that of the Paper II on the same day in the afternoon (from 1 PM to 4 PM). The evaluation in respect of the said two papers was started from 24.09.2016 by five examiners. Similarly, the examination of Political Science Papers I & II were held on 19.09.2016 (one in the forenoon and the other in the afternoon) and the evaluation of the said two papers was started on 20.09.2016.

15. No doubt, the time available to the concerned officials for performing the essential formalities was very limited. However, one cannot reasonably say that the time available was too short for performing the necessary formalities and as such the answer scripts of the said subjects must have been

39

handed over to the concerned evaluators without performing the necessary formalities. In my opinion, having regard to the finding already made above as regard the time within which the officials could perform the necessary formalities and also in view of absence of any rule requiring that the necessary formalities in respect of all answer scripts of the subject should be completed before starting the evaluation, there was reasonable and sufficient time for completion of necessary formalities in respect of some of the answer scripts before handing them over to the concerned evaluator even on the day of the examination itself.

16. In respect of the remaining papers, more than sufficient time was available to the concerned officials for performing the necessary formalities before handing over the answer scripts to the evaluators. For example, in respect of General English Paper I, the examination was held on 04.09.2016 and the evaluation of the paper was started only on 09.09.2019. The examination of General English Paper II – Essay was held in the afternoon on 04.09.2016 and the evaluation of the paper was started on 11.09.2016. The Management papers were held on 07.09.2016 and the evaluation of the papers was started only from 16.09.2016. Similarly, the examination of History papers was held on 15.09.2016 and the evaluation of the said papers was started from 17.09.2016. In my considered opinion, there is no sufficient basis for thinking there was no sufficient time for completing the necessary formalities in respect of answer scripts of many subjects before handing over the answer scripts to the concerned evaluators for evaluation.

17. Regarding the controversy if proper evaluation of a large number of answer scripts by any evaluator on an average of about 35 to 76 answer scripts in a day would have been possible or not. I have examined the answer scripts of Essay paper of most of the writ petitioners and most of the selected candidates. I did not find anything on the basis of which one could reasonably say that the answer scripts of the said paper had not been properly evaluated. An independent report submitted by Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha whose assistance I took at the time of the enquiry may kindly be perused in this regard. Moreover, the evaluator of Essay paper was found to be the question setter having high qualifications and also one having experience in the field. Though he was one residing outside this state, his attendance was secured and his statement was recorded before me. His statement is in the file. In his statement, he gave acceptable reasons as to how he could complete the evaluation of the answer scripts of Essay paper numbering 1063 within the period from 11.09.2016 to 24.09.2016. I did not find sufficient basis for thinking that the answer scripts of Essay paper had not been evaluated properly. In my opinion, the concerned evaluator was an expert having wide experience and he evaluated the answer scripts properly with due care and attention within the above said period.

40

18. In respect of other subjects also, I did not find anything to form a reasonable opinion that the evaluations of the answer scripts had not been done properly. Further, in respect of the controversy regarding allowing a single expert to evaluate Paper I & Paper II of a subject, in my opinion, if the expert engaged by the MPSC for the purpose is a qualified one having experience, no impropriety is to be imputed to the MPSC in that regard. Independent opinion expressed by Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha may kindly be perused in this regard also. I have ascertained that all the evaluators were from outside Manipur and that all of them are well qualified with experience for the works entrusted. The Secretary, MPSC submitted a written statement mentioning the qualifications and experience of the evaluators engaged in the said examination. The said statement of the Secretary is in the file. On the basis of the materials before me, I did not consider that the examinations of the other evaluators were necessary.

19. As per statement of the Secretary, MPSC soon after distribution of answer scripts on 04.09.2016 in the forenoon, the Asst. Supervisor of D.M. College Science Centre asked the Addl. Secretary, MPSC as to what should be done in case a demand for extra paper/sheet was received from a candidate in view of the fact that the answer scripts used in the examination were having only 34 blank sheets as against the answer scripts of previous MCS Examination which contained 48 lined pages. According to the Secretary, MPSC, in that situation after consultation with the Chairman, the decision of the commission to allow extra paper/sheet to the candidates was taken and made known to the candidates through the Supervisor/Asst.Supervisor in all examination halls. During the examination of the answer scripts, it was ascertained that some of the writ petitioners had also taken extra sheets. Nothing was found to show that any prejudice had been caused to any of the writ petitioners including petitioners No. 13 & 105 of W.P(c) No 803 of 2016 on account of the violation of the printed instruction. In this regard also independent view expressed by Dr. P. Milan in his report may kindly be perused.

20. Regarding printing of instruction in the answer scripts of the said examination about impermissiblility of taking extra sheet, the Secretary, MPSC explained that the answer scripts were printed outside Manipur and instructions got printed due to oversight from the previous answer scripts. The purpose of the instruction in the previous answer scripts was that it was OMR based which was machine readable and contained sufficient number of pages and as such the said purpose was not applicable in respect of the answer scripts of the said examination of 2016.

21. It was also ascertained that soon after evaluation of a packet of answer scripts of a subject was over, the said answer scripts were scrutinized by the officials of the commission and experts invited from outside for any left over/unevaluated

41

answer, totalling error, posting error etc. However the process of moderation and scalling of marks was not adopted by the MPSC in the said examination.

22. In the conclusion, on the basis of the materials before me and my observation during the enquiry, I am of the opinion that there was no unholy haste on the part of the MPSC in managing and getting the result of the Main Examination of the Competitive Examination 2016 announced on the 11th day from the date of completion of the examination. During the enquiry, I did not find anything substantial on the basis of which one might reasonably conclude that there had been irregularity or impropriety on the part of the MPSC in getting the result announced speedily.

Submitted

M. Binoykumar Singh Director,

Manipur Judicial Academy”

[29] The other members assisting the Commissioner did not deviate

substantially from the observations made in the report and wherever there

have been discordant notes, the same will be referred to.

[30] As regards the foremost grievance of the petitioner that it was

not possible to evaluate large number of answer scripts as referred to above,

the observation in the Report is that it could not be reasonably held that

evaluation of the answer scripts had not been done properly. The

Commissioner noted that though time available to the concerned officials for

performing the essential formalities was very limited, one cannot reasonably

say that the time available was too short for performing these essential

formalities.

The Commissioner also observed that all the evaluators were

from outside Manipur and were all well qualified with experience for the

works entrusted.

The Commissioner was also satisfied with the procedures

adopted and followed regarding codification, tabulation etc. and did not

come across anything to suggest irregularities or manipulation.

42

As regards the issue of supply of extra-sheets to the

examinees, the Commissioner after having considered the explanation

furnished by the MPSC, observed that nothing was found to show that any

prejudice had been caused to any of the writ petitioners on account of the

violation of the printed instructions.

However, as regards the process of moderation and scaling of

marks, the Report categorically stated that the same was not adopted by the

MPSC in the said examination.

The Report concluded with the observation that on the basis of

the materials, there was no undue haste on the part of the MPSC in

managing and getting the results of the Main Examination of the Competitive

Examination, 2016 announced. Further, it was observed that nothing

substantial was observed on the basis of which one could draw a conclusion

that there had been irregularity or impropriety on the part of the MPSC in

getting the result announced speedily.

[31] As mentioned above, the Court appointed Commission did not

come across any irregularity or manipulation in the entire examination

process starting with codification till declaration of result. The Commissioner

also did not consider that the speedy evaluation of papers vitiated the

examination. The Commissioner was satisfied with the experience and

expertise of the examiners and observed that the speedy evaluation did not

compromise with the quality of evaluation.

[32] The Report submitted by the Commissioner, however, was

assailed by the petitioners on various grounds because of which some of the

petitioners have filed the writ petition W.P.(C) No. 60 of 2017 seeking

quashing of the report, regarding which this Court will advert to at a later

stage.

[33] As this Court proceeds to examine the objections raised by the

petitioners, it may be clarified that the Commission so appointed by this

Court on 21.12.2016 was not meant to be a full fledged Commission to

undertake an exhaustive and extensive enquiry. The Commissioner was

43

appointed only for a limited purpose, for the satisfaction of this Court only

about the credibility of the allegations made in the face of denial by the

MPSC as observed in para 16 of the order dated 21.12.2016 directing

examination by the Commissioner, which is reproduced herein below:

“16. This Court is mindful of the fact that there are certain public institutions whose existence and credibility depend to a large extent on the confidence reposed by the public at large. The Manipur Public Service Commission is one such institution which is a constitutional body created under Article 315 of the Constitution of India. Certain constitutional safeguards have been also provided to maintain its integrity and independence, e.g. safeguards have been provided for appointment and security of tenure of the members so that Public Service Commission can function without any influence from any quarter and discharge their duties independently. The Public Service Commission performs very important functions, which is generally consulted by the State Government on all matters relating to the methods of recruitment to civil services and civil posts, principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts including promotions and transfers, disciplinary matters relating to civil servants and various other important matters. In that context, if certain public doubts have been raised about the functioning of the Commission, all endeavours should be made to clear such doubts from the mind of the public, which would only enhance its credibility.

In the present case, certain genuine doubts had arisen in the mind of the public including the examinees about the expeditiousness with which the results were declared. Though this Court is not yet casting any doubt on the functioning of the Commission, yet, since certain genuine doubts have been raised, dispelling such doubts by examining the functioning of the Commission in the opinion of the Court, would be a desirable exercise. It would be in the public interest and also in the interest of the Commission that such genuine doubts are clarified and dispelled at the earliest. It is in this context that this Court has decided to proceed to examine the evaluation and other co-related processes. This examination is primarily to satisfy the Court itself about the credibility of the allegations made in the face of denial by the Manipur Public Service Commission and this exercise is not by way of any phising enquiry but confined to the doubts raised by the petitioners in the background of the procedure adopted by the Manipur Public Service Commission in conducting the Main examination, more particularly, relating to the evaluation of the answer scripts, as discussed above.”

[34] This Court also observed in para 14 of the order dated

21.12.2016 that if it is shown that the evaluation of the answer scripts within

44

such a short period of time by the evaluators is not plausible or not

practicable in the context of the arrangement made by the MPSC, it may call

for a relook into the entire examination system. In that regard, this Court

had relied on the decisions in BSNL Vs. Surendra Nath Pandey (supra)

and New Horizons Ltd. (supra) to refer to the scope of judicial review and

one of the cardinal principles that if any action of the authority is irrational,

or if the evaluation of the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant

the conclusion of the decision maker, the Court could intervene. Similarly, if

the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then

the decision the other way, cannot be upheld.

However, while undertaking such an exercise by the Court,

which was delegated to the Commissioner for the reasons explained in the

order dated 21.12.2016, and as it would have involved examining numerous

answer scripts, examining officials etc., this Court (or the Commissioner)

could not have been expected to act as a Court of appeal over the

functioning of the MPSC. It could not evaluate evidences or examine

sufficiency or otherwise of evidence for coming to own conclusion as if it is a

Court of appeal qua the decision of the MPSC unless it is irrational or suffers

from any of the vices within the scope of Wednesbury reasonableness.

Therefore, if the Commissioner had undertaken the exercise, which he

undertook, it was for the limited purpose of ascertaining prima facie

existence of patent illegality or irrationality in the functioning of the MPSC.

The Commissioner did not find any material irregularity or indications of

manipulation by the officials, functionaries or agents of the MPSC. Once the

Commissioner was satisfied with the arrangements made, steps taken,

processes, adopted by the MPSC in the conduct of examination, the

Commissioner could not have delved further into various possibilities of

irregularities. The Commissioner could not have undertaken a detailed

enquiry as if it was a fact finding Commission as contemplated under the

Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 or any investigative agency. The

Commissioner was not authorised nor mandated to undertake an exhaustive

and roving enquiry as it would be beyond the power of the Court in exercise

of power of judicial review to undertake such an extensive enquiry. The

45

Commissioner was not expected to or required to examine any of the

petitioners at the time of undertaking the exercise of verification, as such a

procedure could have been adopted only in the case of a full scale enquiry.

Hence, no such direction was issued to the Commissioner to examine the

petitioners also. Of course, the matter would have been otherwise, if in

course of the limited enquiry undertaken by the Commissioner, serious

lapses or irregularities had been discovered/disclosed/revealed. In such

event, it would be certainly within the authority of this Court to order for a

full scale enquiry into the entire episode. However, no such irregularity or

manipulation had been brought to light. The question of ordering a full scale

and extensive enquiry does not arise when there is no prima facie evidence

or material indicating any such serious lapse.

[35] If the aforesaid position is appreciated, most of the objections

raised by the petitioners would not carry much weight so as to warrant

interference by this Court in this case in exercise of the power of judicial

review, though there are certain areas of the functioning of the MPSC which

this Court does not consider to be satisfactory, about which this Court shall

deal at a later stage.

[36] The petitioners have taken great pains to argue that there have

been numerous irregularities in the process of codification and evaluation.

As regards codification, it has been alleged that this exercise

undertaken by a team of 9 persons for codification is uncalled for as it would

seriously compromise with the confidentiality of the process. Ideally,

codification should involve minimal persons. The Report of the Committee on

Combined Competitive Examination Reference, 2015 (referred to as the

Bezbaruah Committee Report), on which the petitioners have made reliance,

however, does not make any such recommendation for involving only two

persons as claimed by the petitioners. As to the maximum number of

persons to be involved in the codification, this Court is ill equipped to make

any suggestion as it would depend upon the Commission or such experts

who are well acquainted with the examination system, more particularly such

competitive examinations. However, in order to maintain confidentiality of

46

the process, it is desirable that only minimum persons are involved, which

should be worked out by the Commission, if the rules are silent on this score.

Therefore, this Court would hold that merely because 9 persons were

involved in the codification process, and the chances of leakage of

information would have increased with the increase of number of persons

involved, in absence of any evident irregularity, it cannot be a ground for

interference by this Court. It is to be noted that the Court appointed

Commissioner did not come across any undesirable or doubtful aspect in the

codification process. This Court, therefore, in absence of any such

incriminating evidence or material, would not pass any adverse order against

the MPSC on this count.

This Court would like to make the observation that involvement

of 9 persons during codification cannot be said to be an ideal situation, which

would require reconsideration by the MPSC.

[37] As regards the most contentious issue raised by the petitioners

about the hasty evaluation of papers as referred to above, this is an issue

which cannot be satisfactorily settled as it involves highly subjective elements

of the capacity and expertise of the examiner. There cannot be any rigid

formulation as to how many answer scripts an examiner can evaluate in a

day. It involves so many variables having close connection with subjective

values. Firstly, and most importantly, much will depend on the expertise and

experience of the evaluator. The more experienced and expert the examiner

is, the more evaluation he can carry out. It also depends upon the nature of

the questions and the answers expected to be written by the examinee. It

may also depend on the facilities and infrastructure provided which may be

conducive to speedy scrutiny. Therefore, considering these variable factors

involved, it may be difficult to arrive at any definitive conclusion as to how

many answer scripts an evaluator can evaluate and the limit that can be

placed. The Commissioner examined some of these aspects in this case and

was satisfied that there could not have been improper evaluation because of

the limited time available to the examiner. No serious lapse was noticed by

the Commissioner to doubt the possibility of scrutinizing large number of

answer scripts in such a short period of time.

47

[38] Of course, the possibility of improper evaluation due to

shortage of time to examiner will be always a matter of concern. But mere

possibility cannot be also a ground for interference with the evaluation by

this Court. The Commission did examine some papers of the petitioners and

the successful candidates but could not detect any serious anomaly or

irregularity in these papers. Therefore, in absence of any glaring

inconsistency or irregularity, to indicate that the examiners did not evaluate

properly, this Court could not delve further into this arena of subjective

exercise of evaluation and it would not be appropriate for this Court in

exercise of power of judicial review, to come to any definitive conclusion that

the evaluation was casually done by compromising with quality evaluation

expected of a competitive examination.

[39] The petitioners have referred to various studies undertaken to

demonstrate that it would be humanly impossible to read, much less

evaluate so many answer scripts within such a short period of time. This is

an arena which would certainly involve expert opinions and this Court may

not be the appropriate body to give a definitive finding. Hence, this Court

would refrain from examining this issue, more particularly, when the Court

appointed Commissioner has not pointed out any material irregularity.

[40] The other issue on which the petitioners have laid great

emphasis is about the non announcement by way of written

information/notification that the candidates can take extra sheets. The

instructions on the answer sheet clearly mention that no extra sheets will be

allowed under any circumstance. It has been therefore, contended that when

there is clear written instruction for not allowing any extra sheets, the MPSC

could not have allowed the same. The petitioners contend that even if it is

accepted that it was decided in the midst of the examination considering the

urgent requirement of the same, that extra sheets could be given to the

candidates, the same should have been notified in writing at the first

available opportunity and certainly on the next day, which however, was not

done. They accordingly contend that in absence of written notification, mere

verbal announcement, which the petitioners deny having made, will be

48

legally impermissible, relying on the decision of this Court in Khuraijam

Romesh Singh Vs. MPSC and Ors. in W.P. (C) no. 189 of 2013 wherein it

had been held that if there is admissible documentary evidence, to that

extent, oral evidence contrary to the documentary evidence cannot be taken

into account. The petitioners deny that the MPSC had ever made the

announcement as claimed by them in their affidavit in opposition. The MPSC

in their response had stated that it was due to oversight that the instructions

to the effect that no extra sheets would be provided to the candidates were

printed on the answer sheets. It was also contended that on earlier

occasions, the answer sheets used to contain 48 sheets which had been

reduced to 34. Thus when certain candidates wanted extra sheets after the

examination commenced as reported by the Invigilators, the MPSC after

considering the matter took a prompt decision while the examinations were

going on to allow candidates to take extra sheets. The MPSC also stated that

the same was done bona fide considering the genuine requirements of the

candidates and in fact some of the petitioners themselves had taken extra

sheets, which has not been denied by the petitioners. As such, since some of

the petitioners had taken advantage of taking extra sheets they cannot now

be heard of complaining about the same. The MPSC emphasises that in any

event, it has not been shown by the petitioners that they were in any way

prejudiced by this act. The MPSC contended that therefore, in absence of

any prejudice caused to the petitioners and also having not disclosed in the

petition that they had taken extra sheets, they cannot raise any grievance

now.

The MPSC as well as the private respondents also contend that

the Court appointed Commission had corroborated the aforesaid stand of the

MPSC and the private Respondents.

The petitioners however, have not accepted the Report of the

Commissioner and have submitted that the Commissioner had not examined

any of the petitioners nor any other invigilators to ascertain this aspect and

had blindly believed the officials of the MPSC.

49

[41] In this regard this Court would like to agree with the contention

of the petitioners that in absence of a written notification, mere verbal

announcement would not meet the requirement of law. To that extent, it can

be said that there had been infraction of the rules. But the issue that arises

for consideration by this Court is whether such irregularity and infraction of

rules would have the effect of nullifying the examination so held. In the

opinion of the Court, any deviation from the laid down rules would not ipso

facto result in vitiating the examination process, unless it is shown that such

a deviation had materially affected the examination and/or had caused grave

prejudice to the candidates.

In the present case, it has been alleged and not denied, and

also observed by the Commissioner that some of the petitioners themselves

had taken extra sheets. The petitioners have also failed to show in what

manner they had been greatly prejudiced by this. The fact that none of the

candidates including the petitioners had ever lodged any complaint before

the MPSC authorities about the impermissibility of giving extra sheets to the

candidates in violation of the instructions during the examination or soon

thereafter indicates that no serious prejudice had been caused to the

candidates. The extra sheets were apparently given to the candidates on the

first day of the commencement of written examination and the examination

continued for several days. However, no one protested against the same at

the relevant time or soon after the examination was concluded. It is not the

allegation of the petitioners that the invigilators had selectively and

surreptitiously given extra sheets to only a select few or only to the selected

candidates to the detriment and disadvantage of the petitioners and other

candidates. If extra sheets were given to some candidates, the same was

done openly. If any of the petitioners felt that he/she was prejudiced by this,

they have not given the details how he/she had been prejudiced. The

petitioners have however, stated that because of the aforesaid written

instruction, some of the petitioners had either tried to minimize their

handwriting or minimize the number of words so as to enable to

accommodate their answers in the provided 34 pages answer sheets which

had resulted in leaving certain blank spaces after the answers. The

50

petitioners contend that these would go to show that all the candidates were

not made aware of the decision of the MPSC to allow extra sheets. The

petitioners also stated that some of the petitioners came to know of the

provision for extra sheets only after about 2 hours of the commencement of

the examination and some came to know about the same only after they had

appeared in 2/3 subjects, thus causing serious disadvantage to the

petitioners. These are complaints which are highly subjective which could not

have been assessed by the Court initiated Commission for the reason that,

the Commissioner was neither equipped nor mandated to examine in detail

about the subjective element involved in the evaluation. This exercise, which

would have necessitated re-evaluation of the answer scripts on merit, to be

undertaken only by experts in the subject and also examining the candidates,

thus going into serious disputed question of facts, was beyond the scope of

this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. It is to be noted that there was

no observation in the Report that all the successful candidates had been

given extra answer sheets which would have indicated an undue

advantageous position conferred on them. Therefore, this Court while

exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not inclined

to interfere with the examination on this score on the basis of the available

material.

[42] The petitioners have also taken exceptions to the issuance of

the Notification dated 4th March, 2016 by which the Manipur Civil Services

Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 was amended providing for

simultaneous evaluation of the papers namely, “Essay”, “General Studies”

and “Optional Subject” of all the candidates and fixing 40% as a qualifying

marks in the qualifying papers i.e. “General English”. The petitioners have

alleged that in the previous examinations conducted by the MPSC the rule

was to evaluate “General English” first before evaluating the other subjects

such as “General Studies” and the “Optional papers”. Thus, the remaining

papers of only those candidates who qualified “General English” were

evaluated. The petitioners contend that however, by the aforesaid

amendment brought vide Notification dated 04.03.2016, the aforesaid

procedure was done away with and provided for simultaneous evaluation

51

which has created a wide room for manipulation of marks and providing

good grounds for indulging in favoritism and nepotism by the authorities.

They submitted that those candidates who were highly qualified in “Essay”,

“General Studies” and “Optional papers” may be made to fail by manipulating

their marks in “General English”.

[43] It has been further contended that the aforesaid Notification

dated 04.03.2016 was made known to public only on 04.09.2016 though the

said Notification was purportedly issued on 04.03.2016.

[44] It has been further alleged that fixing of 40% as a qualifying

mark for “General English” was whimsical and not as per the UPSC norm in

which the qualifying mark has been fixed as 25% and also it is contrary to

the direction issued by this Court in Hanjabam Bobby Sharma (supra) in

which this Court had directed that the qualifying mark for the General English

should be in consonance with the UPSC and other State Public Service

Commission. By fixing a very high percentage as qualifying mark it has the

effect of disqualifying others who made it well in other subjects but not so

well in the qualifying subject. Further, since the said Notification was notified

only on 04.09.2016 in the official website of the MPSC on the day of

examination it has caused grave disadvantage to the candidates who had

been putting all their efforts in getting good marks in all subjects and not in

the qualifying examination of “General English”.

[45] These allegations have been, however, denied by the MPSC

contending that the provision for simultaneous evaluation has been made in

order to save time in the evaluation as evaluating other papers only after

evaluating the “General English” would tend to take longer time in

evaluation.

It has been also denied by the MPSC that the Notification was

uploaded in the official website only on 04.09.2016 as the same was duly

published in the official gazette as soon as it was notified on 04.03.2016 and

as such, they have denied the allegation that it was notified belatedly.

It has been also contended by the MPSC that fixing of 40% as

a qualifying mark in “General English” was done in the earlier examinations

52

conducted by the MPSC and as such it cannot be said that it is whimsical or

arbitrarily high.

[46] As regards these allegations of the petitioners, this Court is of

the view that though the Notification dated 04.03.2016 might have been

uploaded only on 04.09.2016, there is also record produced by the MPSC to

support that the same was published in the official gazette on the next day.

The MPSC have produced a copy of the Notification dated 04.03.2016 which

was published in the extraordinary Manipur Gazette on 5th March, 2016,

which is annexed as Annexure-D/2 to the affidavit-in-opposition.

[47] The petitioners have also alleged that otherwise also, there was

no simultaneous evaluation of the papers as required under the rules by

emphasizing on the meaning of the word “simultaneous”. The petitioners

contend that if the rules provide for simultaneous evaluation, the MPSC

ought to have got the answer scripts evaluated at the same time which

however, was not done. They contend that from the chart showing the dates

on which different papers were evaluated which is annexed as Annexure-

D/3, it is clearly evident that evaluation of the papers of “Essay”, “General

Studies” and “Optional subjects” were done on different dates and not

“simultaneously” as required under rules. Therefore, there has been violation

of the aforesaid amended rules as notified on 04.03.2016.

This Court, however, is not convinced with the aforesaid

submission made on the part of the petitioners in as much as though the

word “simultaneously” means “at the same time” it has to be understood in

the context of the evaluation of the answer scripts. It has to be given a

practical meaning so as to accept evaluation during the same period of time.

The evaluation of “General English” started on 09.09.2016 and that of

“Essay” on 11.09.2016 and the other “Optional papers” also started soon

thereafter on 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25 September, 2016 without much

difference in the time period. The word “simultaneously” used in the rule

cannot be interpreted in a pedantic and strict literal meaning but in a

practical manner. Accordingly, since the evaluation of these papers were

53

done more or less concurrently, this Court is of the view that there had been

no substantial violation of the aforesaid rules.

Further, in absence of any material to show that the petitioners

had suffered prejudice by this alleged violation of rules, this Court is not

inclined to interfere on this ground.

[48] Further, even if this Court had directed for fixing the qualifying

marks in the qualifying subject in consonance with UPSC and other State

Public Service Commissions on an earlier occasion, since this Notification

fixing 40% as the qualifying marks for General English has not been

specifically challenged in this writ petition, no effective order can be passed.

[49] There was also another allegation about the controversial

provisions for syllabus and questions and some of the questions were out of

syllabus and were wrong. This Court is of the view that these allegations are

based on subjective understanding of the questions and unless any of the

questions are demonstratively and unambiguously and without any

alternative opinion, shown to be out of syllabus or wrong, which has not

been demonstrated in course of the proceeding, this Court is not inclined to

enter into this disputed arena which would require expert opinion, in exercise

of power of judicial review.

[50] There is also the complaint that there ought to be

categorization of candidates belonging to General, OBC, SC, ST etc. as

regards the qualifying marks of “General English”. In other words, the

qualifying marks of 40% has been uniformly applied irrespective of the

candidates. This Court is of the view that in absence of a rule to that extent,

non categorization as claimed by the petitioners cannot be said to be

arbitrary or illegal if the MPSC decides to apply uniformly as regards the

qualifying marks. The candidates cannot claim as of right, any categorization

for giving concession to any category of candidates, in absence of rules to

that effect.

[51] The petitioners have also contended that there had been no

moderation or scaling of marks while evaluating the answer scripts of the

candidates which has been also confirmed by the Report, relying on the

54

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and Another Vs.

U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, (2007) 3

SCC 720 and Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs. Union Public Service

Commission and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 489. The petitioners have

submitted that moderation and scaling are inherent in such a competitive

examination, more particularly, where a number of examiners and optional

subjects are involved. In this regard, it may be mentioned that this aspect

has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later decision in Sunil

Kumar and Others Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Others,

(2016) 2 SCC 495 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that

Sanjay Singh (supra) did not decide to lay down any inflexible principle that

where papers are common, the system of moderation must be applied and

where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only available option

and the decision has to be understood to be confined to the facts of the

case, rendered upon a consideration of the relevant service rules prescribing

a particular syllabus.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to observe that it

cannot be stated to be a law imposing the requirement of adoption of

moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others, which

are merely options to be adopted after in depth analysis, which would

require experts’ views and the fact that such bodies including the

Commission erred or have acted in less than responsible manner in the past

cannot be a reason for exercise of judicial power which would normally be

limited to instances of arbitrariness or malafide exercise of power. In this

regard, it may be apposite to reproduce the following paragraphs in the

aforesaid judgment in Sunil Kumar (supra) :

“19. The entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay Singh3 was with regard to the question of the suitability of the scaling system to an examination where the question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method as pointed out and extracted above were in the above context. But did Sanjay Singh3 lay down any binding and inflexible requirement of law with regard to adoption of the scaling method to an examination where the candidates are tested in different subjects as in the present examination? Having regard to the context in which the conclusions were reached

55

and opinions were expressed by the Court it is difficult to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh3 could be understood to have laid down any binding principle of law or directions or even guidelines with regard to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers and declaration of results by the Commission. What was held, in our view, was that scaling is a method which was generally unsuitable to be adopted for evaluation of answer papers of subjects common to all candidates and that the application of the said method to the examination in question had resulted in unacceptable results. Sanjay Singh3 did not decide that to such an examination i.e. where the papers are common the system of moderation must be applied and to an examination where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only available option. We are unable to find any declaration of law or precedent or principle in Sanjay Singh3 to the above effect as has been canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants. The decision, therefore, has to be understood to be confined to the facts of the case, rendered upon a consideration of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a particular syllabus.

20. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an in-depth consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a strait jacket formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh3. A conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination; the standards of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power.”

3 Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC

720: (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 870.

56

In view of the above, though there was no scaling or

moderation of marks, since there is no legal provision or obligation to resort

to either of these, the examination result cannot be said to be vitiated.

Further, though admittedly no scaling nor moderation was

adopted by the MPSC, in absence of an apparent and demonstratable wide

variation of marks which would indicate arbitrariness, this Court is not

inclined to interfere on this ground.

[52] Thus, considering the facts and circumstances as discussed

above, and also in absence of any patent illegality or irregularity as has been

also observed in the Report, this Court is not inclined to invoke the power of

judicial review to interfere with the examination conducted by the MPSC.

[53] Having said so, this Court however, is not giving a wholesome

stamp approval to the functioning of the MPSC as some of the aspects

require examination by the appropriate authority. It is to be noted that this

reluctance on the part of this Court to interfere with the examination at this

stage, stems from the fact that this Court had examined these issues

through the lens of judicial review. There are inherent limitations in the legal

parameters governing the law relating judicial review. The Court while

exercising power of judicial review is primarily confined to examination about

the existence of (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality and (iii) procedural impropriety

and it does not enter into merits of the decision made. Judicial review is

concerned not with the merit of the decision but with the decision making

process and thus, primarily concerned in the manner in which the decision is

made and not whether decision was correct or not. Its scope is entirely

different from an ordinary appeal and it is not upon the Court to review the

decision making by evaluating the evidences and Court will intervene where

the facts taken as a whole would not logically warrant the conclusion of the

decision maker or is irrational or absurd. In this regard, one may recall the

decision rendered in the celebrated case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of

India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, wherein the scope of judicial review has been

restated as follows:

57

“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be :

1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers.

Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:

(i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Home Department, ex Brind 28, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention".

28: (1991) 1 AC 696

[54] Apart from the aforesaid inherent limitations in the scope of

judicial review as mentioned above, normally when serious disputed

questions of facts are involved, the Court while exercising the power of

judicial review as a matter of policy, does not enter into such disputed

arenas except where any decision is patently illegal and perverse.

[55] Thus, because of the aforesaid inherent limitations, this Court

never intended to undertake an extensive inquiry into the conduct of the

examination by the MPSC which would have involved evaluation or scrutiny

of the evidences already in existence and also re-evaluation of the answer

scripts and the examination of the candidates, and as such the Court did not

58

authorize the Enquiry Commission to go for an extensive and in-depth inquiry

into the matter. The Commissioner was appointed merely to assist the Court

in arriving at a satisfaction as to whether there had been any patent illegality

or irregularity considering the allegations made by the petitioners and the

Enquiry Commission upon a limited enquiry had duly submitted a Report that

there was no such patent illegality or irregularity. The observations and

findings arrived at by the Enquiry Commission have to be understood in the

aforesaid context of law and facts, and it cannot be said to be a certification

of the functioning of the MPSC to be beyond reproach. As a corollary, it has

to be noted that the observations and findings of the Court appointed

Commission are not final nor conclusive as regards the various allegations

and issues raised.

[56] As can be seen from above, though various issues have been

raised in these writ petitions which have been accordingly dealt with, the

substantial portion of the allegations relate to the procedures followed in

conducting the examination. As to the procedures to be followed for

conducting examination, the same have been provided under Rule 26-A of

the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business)

Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time. Rule 26-B deals with examination

programme. As regards codification, it has been provided under Sub-rule (9)

under Rule 26-A that the codification shall be done in the presence of the

Controller of Examination who shall be fully responsible for its safe custody

and secrecy. It also states that codification and code number will be kept in

the safe custody of the Controller of Examination. It is also mentioned that

the marks obtained by each candidate shall not be made known to either the

Chairman or to the Members before the Viva Voce in order to maintain

integrity and justice in conducting the Competitive Examinations. It has been

also provided that the Strong Room shall be under the dual control of the

Chairman and Secretary. From the above it is clear that it is the Controller of

Examination who is responsible for the codification in which neither the

Chairman nor the Secretary are involved. However, it seems the function of

the Controller of Examination was discharged by the Secretary as there was

no Controller of Examination. As to how the codification has to be taken up

59

and the numbers of persons to be involved in the process, the Rules are

silent. Rules, however, provide that codification is a very confidential work

where even the Chairman and Members of the Commission are not allowed

to know the secrecy of the process of codification. As already discussed

above, as to what should be the desirable number of persons who are

involved in the codification and how it is to be carried out have not been

specifically mentioned in the rules. As to who is the authority to appoint such

persons who will be involved in the codification is also silent in the rules. This

Court is of the view that since codification is a highly sensitive and

confidential matter and regarding some of the said process, rules are silent,

proper guidelines need to be laid down. Nothing has been mentioned in the

affidavit-in-opposition of the MPSC nor indicated in the record as to whether

there are any detail guidelines for it. Therefore, it is desirable that proper

guidelines are laid down as regards the number of persons to be involved in

the codification process and the manner of carrying out the process of

codification, decodification etc. as the maintenance of confidentiality is

indirectly proportionate to the number of persons engaged. In other words, if

more persons are involved, the possibility of compromising confidentiality will

be higher. This is an issue which needs to be worked out by the MPSC with

the aid of the experts and take suitable corrective steps.

[57] Sub-rule (xii) of Rule 26-B of the aforesaid rules provides that

the number of answer-books to be provided or sent to each examiner shall

be fixed by the Controller of Examination with prior approval of the

examination Committee. It is not disclosed either in the affidavit-in-

opposition nor in the Report as to when the Controller of Examination took

such decision about the number of answer-books to be provided to each

examiner which are to be examined on an single day. Since serious doubts

have arisen because of allowing more than 75 answer scripts in a day, the

Controller of Examination can fix the optimum number of answer scripts that

can be examined by each examiner on a single day for optimal result and

proper evaluation as allowing more than 75 answer sheets to be examined

cannot be certainly said to be a desirable and ideal situation, though it may

be possible to be accomplished by certain evaluators. It may be also

60

mentioned that under Sub-rule (xviii) of Rule 26-B it is provided that

notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the evaluation &

tabulation of answer books or sheets as the case may be, shall be done as

per procedures laid down by the Commission. However, nothing has been

brought on record as to the procedure laid down by the Commission for

undertaking evaluation and tabulation.

[58] The observation made by Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha on the

basis of the statement made by the external examiner that he had

undertaken the evaluation from around 8:30 am upto 9:30 pm daily with

lunch breaks of 1/1:30 hours in between for 7 days continuously cannot

certainly be said to be an ideal and desirable situation. Such prolonged daily

and continuous evaluation was bound to take a toll on the body and mind of

the examiner, howsoever, experienced an examiner might be. Therefore, the

concern expressed by the petitioners that there could not have been proper

evaluation cannot be said to be illogical or a fantastic one and in the realm of

imagination. It is indeed a matter of concern for which corrective steps need

to be taken by the MPSC.

The observation made by Shri N. Brajakanta Singh, Manipur

Judicial Academy who had assisted the Commissioner to the effect that in his

opinion the outsider evaluator, even though he had a good enough of extra

qualifications, did not evaluate the answer scripts with utmost diligence and

thus indicated to the lack of satisfaction about the proper evaluation, is

certainly a jarring note to the observation of the Commissioner which must

be properly addressed to by the MPSC.

[59] The reference to the number of answer scripts being examined

by the evaluators in respect of Council of Higher Secondary Education,

National Institute of Open Schooling etc. by the petitioners has some

significance. The fact that these institutions have placed a limit on the

answer scripts to be examined by the evaluators is certainly to ensure that

the answer scripts are evaluated properly by giving adequate time to the

evaluators to devote optimum time to each answer script. Thus, these

institutions have worked out certain optimum number of answer scripts to be

61

evaluated which they consider the most conducive for scrutiny which would

give the best result under certain specific conditions and made such

stipulation a part of the examination rules.

In the present case, it is clearly evident that there is no such

examination rule which stipulates the maximum number of answer scripts

that can be evaluated by the evaluators. It has been left to the expertise and

experience of the evaluator concerned. This, however, cannot be said to be

an ideal and desirable situation, more particularly in a competitive public

examination like the present one which this Court is examining. In such a

competitive examination, what is of utmost importance is that the

Commission, which is conducting this competitive examination, must be seen

to be functioning in a fair, transparent manner and by following the rules

uniformly for all the candidates as only the most meritorious candidates are

to be selected.

In the present case, since the MPSC has not framed any rules

about the number of answer scripts an evaluator can scrutinise in a day, it

cannot be said that any rule has been violated which would call for

interference. Thus, in absence of any rules, it will be difficult to hold that

evaluating about 76 answer scripts in a day is illegal per se. Yet, the onus of

the Commission that it has acted in a fair and transparent manner to be

discharged is very high, simply for ensuring credibility of its functioning.

Since this is not an ideal situation as is also revealed from the Report of the

Commission, such a situation must be avoided in future. This Court has also

noted that the MPSC has not offered any explanation as to what prompted it

to proceed at such breakneck speed to complete the evaluation within such a

short time. Rules also do not provide that the result of the written

examination must be declared within specified days. They have neither

offered, nor the Report also mentions any such reason which compelled the

MPSC to insist on the examiners to evaluate in such a short period of time.

The fact that the examiner in Essay had started evaluation around 8:30 am

which continued upto 9:00 to 9:30 pm daily with lunch breaks of 1 to 1:30

hrs break in between for 7 days cannot be at all said to be an ideal mode of

evaluation, which must be avoided in future. The MPSC must lay down

62

guidelines and frame rules in this regard to avoid such a scenario in future

which has exposed the examination to undue delay and uncertainty.

[60] This Court is of the view that since it is a competitive public

examination where the Commission is expected to function in the fair and

transparent manner, all endeavours should be made to avoid any situation

which would lead to creating any doubt on the functioning of the

Commission. Though in the present case no material irregularity had been

noticed by the Court appointed Commission, in spite of large number of

answer scripts being examined, the room of doubt will always remain as to

the quality of evaluation. Therefore, it will be always desirable that to obviate

any doubt in future which has caused so much of delay in the finalization of

the recruitment process, the Commission must lay down the norm for fixing

the number of answer scripts to be examined by the evaluators. The

Commission may do so in consultation with experts in this field so that

neither the examiners are put to undue stress for completing the scrutiny in

such short span of time and also to dispel any doubt of improper evaluation.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Commission must

lay down the procedures in writing in advance and ought not be left to the

absolute discretion of any individual functionary as it seems to have been

done in the present case which has caused so much uncertainty and

suspicion in the mind of the candidates which were all avoidable. Laying

down of detail procedure by the Commission as regards evaluation and

tabulation would prevent any scope of arbitrariness or any room for

suspicion.

The functioning of such an important body like the Manipur

Public Service Commission can not be left to the absolute discretion of

certain functionaries only. There must be properly laid down

guidelines/instructions to govern these crucial areas of the examination

system.

[61] It may be noted that the importance of credible functioning of

public bodies like the public service commission has been commented in

63

many a decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Mehar Singh Saini, In re,

(2010) 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,

“6. Higher the public office, greater is the responsibility. The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of

functions of the Commission can result in defects not only in the process of selection but also in the appointments to the

public offices which, in turn, will affect effectiveness of administration of the State. Most of the democratic countries in the world have set up Public Service Commissions to

make the matter of appointments free from nepotism and political patronage. For instance the Conseil d’Etat in France,

which is composed of the cream of the French Civil Service, has acquired considerable veneration for its capacity to police intelligently the complex administration of the modern

State. Justice J.C. Shah in his report on the excesses of the Emergency, struck by the “unhealthy factors governing the

relationship between Ministers and civil servants”, recommended the adoption of droit administratif of the French model by the Government. He observed that the

commitment of a public functionary should be to the duties of his office, their due performance with an emphasis on

their ethical content and not to the ideologies, political or otherwise of the politicians, who administer the affairs of the State.

7. Great powers are vested in the Commission and therefore, it must ensure that there is no abuse of such powers. The principles of public accountability and

transparency in the functioning of an institution are essential for its proper governance. The necessity of sustenance of

public confidence in the functioning of the Commission may be compared to the functions of judiciary in administration of justice which was spelt out by Lord Denning in Metropolitan

Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon2 in the following words: (QB p. 599 F)

“… Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased’.”

8. The conduct of the Chairman and members of the Commission, in discharge of their duties, has to be above

board and beyond censure. The credibility of the institution of the Public Service Commission is founded upon faith of

the common man on its proper functioning. Constant allegations of corruption and promotion of family interests at

the cost of national interest resulting in invocation of constitutional mechanism for the removal of Chairman/members of the Commission erode public

confidence in the Commission. Prof. Brown and Prof. Garner’s observation in their treatise French Administrative

Law, 3rd Edn. (1983) in this regard can be usefully referred to. They said:

“The standard of behaviour of an administration depends in the last resort upon the quality and

traditions of the public officials who compose it rather

64

than upon such sanctions as may be exercised through

a system of judicial control.”

Of course, the aforesaid observations were made in the context

of allegations of misconduct made against the Chairperson and members of

the Haryana Public Service Commission. In the present case, though there is

no such allegation against any member of the Commission, the aforesaid

observations are also apposite in the context of the functioning of the

Commission which must be above board and suspicion, since the most

meritorious candidates have to be selected to man the prestigious state

public service and there must not be any lack of public confidence on the

functioning of the Commission nor on the persons so selected by the

Commission.

[62] It is too fundamental not to be noticed that there are certain

public institutions like the Manipur Public Service Commission whose

existence and credibility depends to a large extent on the confidence reposed

on these by the public at large. Such public institutions cannot remain

satisfied on the mere fact that certain allegations of irregularities leveled

against them have not been proved. The fact that serious allegations have

been made in the functioning of such institutions, even if not proved,

certainly puts a serious dent on the prestige and credibility of such

institutions. The allegations raised by the petitioners in these batch of

petitions cannot be said to be mere figments of imaginations and illusory.

These are allegations which have the potential of seriously damaging the

image of the Manipur Public Service Commission. Therefore, it is important

that those who are involved with the functioning of the Manipur Public

Service Commission take all the necessary measures not to allow the

credibility of such institutions to be undermined by such complaints. After all,

the credibility of such public institutions in a democratic society like ours

depends to a large extent on the positive public perception of their

functioning. Any negative public perception of the functioning would tend to

lower the prestige and credibility of such institutions.

65

[63] The other serious lapse of the MPSC is about the irregularity in

furnishing extra answer sheets to the candidates in spite of specific

instructions. Though the Court had accepted at this stage, that the mistake

in printing instructions that no answer scripts would be made available to the

candidates was bona fide, such mistake would have had the potential of

creating serious prejudice to the candidates as the petitioners also had

legitimately claimed that many candidates who were not aware that extra

sheets could be obtained had accordingly prepared their answers to be

written within the supplied scripts. Though it has not been demonstrated by

the petitioners that any of the candidates had suffered serious and grave

prejudice, nor indicated in the Report as discussed above, this was certainly

a serious lapse on the part of the MPSC and this Court hopes and trusts that

such an avoidable mistake is not repeated in future and the MPSC must hold

such persons, who are responsible for such lapses, liable.

[64] As already mentioned above, this Court has decided several

contentious issues involved in this writ petition by adopting the legal

parameters governing the law relating to judicial review which have inherent

limitations by way of self restraint on the part of the Court to intervene in

absence of clearly demonstrable wrong or patent illegality. It may also be

noted that when this Court took cognizance of the matter, it was at a stage

where the recruitment process was still not completed. As a consequence,

when these petitions were filed, the petitioners or for that matter any

candidate could not have had any information about the marks scored in the

written tests nor have access to the answer scripts which candidates would

be entitled to, if sought from the authorities. Now that the final results have

been allowed to be declared, the candidates would be entitled to these

information, if they so desire. It is now well established as held by the

Honb’le Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &

Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497 that the

candidates would be entitled to inspect the evaluated answer scripts.

Further, in Kerala Public Service Commission and Others Vs. State

Information Commission and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 417, the Hon’ble

66

Supreme Court had upheld the right of the candidates for copies of answer

sheets and details of interview marks though they are not entitled to the

disclosure to the identities of the evaluators as held in para 5 of the said

judgment which is reproduced herein below:

“5. So far as the information sought for by the respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of his answer-sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of law and the same is fully justified……… …… … … … … ……………………………………………………………………………”

[65] It may be also mentioned that the Kerala High Court in Kerala

Public Service Commission Vs. State Information Commission,

Kerala, AIR 2011 Ker 135 had made the observation in para 16 of its

judgment that “a particular examinee would therefore be entitled to access

to information in relation to that person’s answer scripts. As regards others,

information in relation to answer scripts may fall within the pale of “third

party information” in terms of section 11 of the RTI Act. This only means

that such information cannot be accessed except in conformity with the

provisions contained in section 11. It does not, in any manner, provide for

any immunity from access.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aforesaid

decision of the Kerala High Court did not agree with the Kerala High Court on

the issue about disclosure of the identity of examiners by holding that the

relationship between the public authority, i.e., Public Service Commission and

the examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship and as such the

applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of the names of the examiners.

Thus, though the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not approve the decision of the

Kerala High Court directing disclosure of the names of the examiners, the

Supreme Court did not interfere with other directions about disclosure of

information relating to answer scripts of the applicants and other

candidates. If that is the position of law, in that event, the petitioners or any

of the examinees can have access to information not only by themselves but

also of other successful candidates, of the marks obtained by them in the

67

written tests or viva voce and also of tabulation sheet etc. In such a

situation, after having accessed the marks and answer scripts or answer

scripts of the concerned candidates and other information, if the petitioners

are able to bring out any patent irregularity in the conduct of the

examination, the petitioners cannot be debarred from invoking the

appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, in spite of non

interference by this Court in these proceedings. This Court holds so, in view

of the fact that the findings arrived at by this Court now are based on the

materials which were obtained before the declaration of the final results and

when none of the petitioners had any knowledge of the marks obtained by

them nor had access to their answer scripts or of others which obviously

would put limitations on the grounds that can be raised by the petitioners in

these proceedings about the conduct of the examination by the MPSC.

Moreover, this Court did not undertake any exhaustive or extensive enquiry

through the Court appointed Commission into the seriously disputed facts for

the reasons already discussed above. There is no conclusive finding of fact

by this Court on the various allegations and issues raised in these petitions.

This Court would, therefore, hold that non interference by this Court in these

petitions would not debar the petitioners from seeking redressal before the

appropriate forum in future if any patent illegalities or irregularities are

disclosed after getting necessary information as mentioned above.

[66] For the reasons discussed above, this Court does not wish to

entertain W.P.(C) No. 60 of 2017 challenging the Report submitted by the

Court appointed Commission. The said Report was based on a limited

enquiry by the Court appointed Commissioner into the conduct of the

examination by the MPSC and for the satisfaction of the Court as to the

existence of any patent and clearly observable illegality or irregularity

without directing any exhaustive and elaborate enquiry into the functioning

of the MPSC and as such, the question of examining the correctness of

otherwise of the observations made in the Report does not arise. The

observations made in the Report are not conclusive findings of relevant facts.

[67] The Respondents have raised certain issues about the

maintainability of these writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 803 of 2016 and W.P.(C)

68

No. 817 of 2016 on the ground that the petitioners had not impleaded the

successful candidates and as such these should be non suited. Further, it had

been contended that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean

hands as they did not disclose that some of the petitioners had themselves

taken extra sheets while challenging furnishing of extra sheets to the

candidates being contrary to the written instruction. This Court is of the view

that the Court need not go into these aspects as the Court has already

declined to allow these petitions on other grounds.

[68] Accordingly, these writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 803 of 2016,

W.P.(C) No. 817 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No. 60 of 2017 are dismissed as no

patent illegality have been disclosed which would warrant interference by

this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review, subject to the

observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, all such related

restraint orders passed by this Court in these proceedings on the final results

of the Manipur Civil Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 shall stand

lifted. Thus, while dismissing, this Court would direct the Manipur Public

Service to do the needful in terms of the observations and directions made,

more particularly in the preceding paragraphs no. 55 to 62 as regards

codification, evaluation and other matters by laying down the

guidelines/instruction so that such allegations and irregularities which form

the cause of actions for filing these writ petitions are avoided in future and to

ensure credibility of the examination system conducted by the Manipur Public

Service Commission, which exercise has to be carried out by the MPSC

before holding the next Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive

Examination and by making amendments in the Manipur Public Service

Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011, wherever

necessary.

JUDGE

FR/NFR Sushil