The Supreme Court has issued a Notice in a petition filed by the State of Manipur challenging the order passed by the Manipur High Court wherein the Court has quashed and set aside the main examination 2016 in pursuant of the notification issued by the MPSC.
The high court has further ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to investigate the conduct of the Main Examination, 2016 by the MPSC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and take appropriate action thereafter in accordance with the law.
The division bench of Justice A M Khanwilker and Justice Sanjiv Khanna after hearing the Sr Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Tushar Mehta ordered the petitioner to issue a public notice in at least two local newspaper returnable on 18 August.
The Court has found it appropriate to issue a notice in public at large as the present case consists of more than 300 respondents.
The present petitions arisen out of a matter in issue relate to the validity and correctness of the unfortunate and controversial examination conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission for recruitment to various posts namely, MCS, MPS, etc.
The MPSC issued a Notification dated 29-12-2015 inviting, through online, applications from amongst the eligible candidates for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2015 for filling up 82 posts of different categories of service to be conducted under the provisions of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 and the Preliminary Examination thereof was to be held on 28-02-2016. In response to the said Notification, many candidates submitted their applications.
In the meantime, the MPSC issued a corrigendum dated 14-01-2016 making certain amendments to the said Notification dated 29-12-2015, followed by a Notification dated 25-01-2016 notifying the last date for submission of application forms as 30-01-2016. Hardly a few days later, a Notification dated 27-01-2016 was issued by the MPSC extending the last date for submission of application forms up to 03-02-2016. Pursuant to a letter dated 16-02-2016 of the State Government withdrawing its requisition for recruitment to 82 posts of different categories of services, the MPSC issued a Notification dated 16-02-2016 canceling its Notification dated 29-12-2015.
Thereafter, the MPSC issued a fresh Notification dated 07-04-2016 inviting applications, online, for filling up the said 82 posts of different categories of service as mentioned therein through the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Examination, 2016”) which was divided into two stages-one, the Preliminary Examination, 2016 and two, the Main Examination, 2016. As per the said Notification, the last date for submission of application forms was 30-04-2016 which was extended thrice thereafter vide Notifications dated 29-04-2016, 08-05-2016, and 11-05-2016 issued by the MPSC up to midnight of 12-05-2016.
The Preliminary Examination, 2016 was held as per schedule on 15-05-2016 but unfortunately, it was canceled vide Notification dated 03-06-2016 issued by the MPSC because of certain contradictory instructions given in para 9 of the test booklet of the said examination and the Preliminary Examination, 2016 was declared to be held on 03-07-2016.
Accordingly, the Preliminary Examination, 2016 was held afresh on 03-07-2016 and the result thereof was declared on 08-07-2016 whereby 1130 (one thousand one hundred and thirty) candidates were declared successful with the further declaration that the Main Examination, 2016 would be held on 04-09-2016. As notified on 08-07-2016, the Main Examination, 2016 commenced from 04-09-2016 but the General Studies Paper which was earlier scheduled to be held on 05-09-2016, was rescheduled on 23-09-2016 and thus, the Main Examination, 2016 continued till 23-09-2016 and the result thereof was declared on 04-10-2016.
In the meantime, the State Government vide its Notification dated 04-03-2016 issued the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination (4th Amendment) Rules, 2016 by which clauses (iv) and (v) were inserted to Rule 6 of Chapter I of Schedule-II of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 and Chapter-II, Schedule-II(B), Note (ii) thereof were also amended. But this Notification dated 04-03-2016 was uploaded on the official website of the MPSC only on 04-09-2016 on which the Main Examination, 2016 was commenced it.
A large number of candidates who had appeared in the Main Examination, 2016, felt aggrieved by the various anomalies, irregularities, and illegalities committed in the process of conducting it and accordingly, some of them approached the Hon‟ble Chief Minister, Manipur by way of a memorandum dated 07-10-2016, while others filed their applications under the RTI Act for furnishing information as regards their answer sheets. Two writ petitions being WP(C) No.803 of 2016 and WP(C) No.817 of 2017 came to be filed by the petitioners therein questioning the validity and correctness of the process of selection and praying for canceling it. In other words, the said writ petitions were filed by them to redress their common grievances.
The High Court after going through all the facts presented and arguments made by the parties held that,
“the MPSC has no intention to conduct an examination in a fair and just manner. It miserably failed to discharge its duties and functions as mandated in the Constitution of India. It would like to continue holding examinations, only in name, with half-baked rules so that it could manipulate it. If the MPSC was/ is unable to frame an appropriate and correct rule, it could do so by taking help from the UPSC or any other State Public Service Commission. There is no harm in doing that. Whenever an allegation is made against the MPSC towards holding of an examination by it, the readymade answer is that the rule is
silent on that.
For example, it is the stand of the MPSC that the signature of the Supervisor on the answer sheets is not mandatory, even though there is a column specified and earmarked for it therein because the rule does not provide for it and that no prejudice will be caused to the candidates. On a query put to the counsel appearing for the MPSC if there is any provision in the rules which provides that the invigilator and the examiner shall put their signature on the answer sheets, the answer of the
counsel is in the negative.”