Ms. Shalini Chingtham & Ors. vs The Manipur Public Service Commission & Ors.

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.

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.

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.

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 seeking the similar reliefs and for quashing/cancellation of the Main Examination of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examinations, 2016.

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.

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.

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 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.

(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.

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. 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.

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.

The MPSC has vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioners contending that evaluation of such a large number of answer 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

properly. In such situations, there should have been proper scaling of marks of candidates writing papers in different disciplines.

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.

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.

Considering the issues raised and doubts raised in the mind of the candidates about the functioning of the MPSC, the Court felt the

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.

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 decisionmaker''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."

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

Commission on 27th, 28th& 29th December 2016 and also on 2 nd& 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 11 th 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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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".

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.

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".

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

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

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.

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 AnnexureD/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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 Singh 3 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 Singh 3 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

and opinions were expressed by the Court it is difficult to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh 3 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 Singh 3 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 Singh 3 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 Singh 3 . 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."

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.

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.

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:

"77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be :

Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?

Committed an error of law,

committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,

reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,

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 decisionmaking 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".

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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-inopposition 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

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.

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.

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

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

guidelines and frame rules in this regard to avoid such a scenario in future which has exposed the examination to undue delay and uncertainty.

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.

It may be noted that the importance of credible functioning of public bodies like the public service commission has been commented in

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.

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''."

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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......... ...... ... ... ... ... ....................................."

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

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.

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.

The Respondents have raised certain issues about the maintainability of these writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 803 of 2016 and W.P.(C) 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.

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.