Shalini Chingtham And Others vs Manipur Public Service Commission And Others

Kh. Nobin Singh, J

[1] Heard Smt. G. Pushpa, Advocate for the the appellants in WA No.19 of 2017 and for the petitioners in WP(C) No.606 of 2017; Shri R.K. Deepak, Advocate for the appellants in WA No.29 of 2017 and for the petitioners in WP(C) No.725 of 2017; Shri Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advoccate, Shri A. Bimol Singh, Senior Advocate, Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, Advocate, Shri  Premjit, Advocate, Shri  Ng.  Kumar,  Advocate, Shri T.  Momo Singh, Advocate,  Shri B.R. Sharma,  Advocate  and Shri Kh.  Tarunkumar Singh, Advocate for the  private  respondents; Shri N. Ibotombi Singh, Senior Advoacate for the MPSC in all the cases; Shri Shyam Sharma, Government Advocate for the State respondents and Shri Y. Nirmolchand, Senior Advocate for the petitioner in WP(C) No.313 of 2018.

[2] The above writ appeals and writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The subject matter in issue relates to the validity and correctness of the unfortunate and controversial examination conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the MPSC") for recruitment to various posts namely, MCS, MPS etc.

[3.1] The MPSC issued a Notification dated 29-12-2015 inviting, through online, applications from amongst the eligible candidates for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Examination, 2015") for filling up 82 posts of different categories of service to be conducted under the provisions of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010") and the Preliminary Examination thereof was to be held on 28-02-2016. In response to the said Notification, many candidates submitted their applications.

[3.2] In the meantime, the MPSC issued a corrigendum dated 14-01-2016 making certain amendments to the said Notification dated 29-12-2015, followed by a Notification dated 25-01-2016 notifying the last date for submission of application forms as 30-01-2016. Hardly few days later, a Notification dated 27-01-2016 was issued by the MPSC extending the last date for submission of application forms upto 03-02-2016. Pursuant to a letter dated 16-02-2016 of the State Government withdrawing its requisition for recruitment to 82 posts of different categories of services, the MPSC issued a Notification dated 16-02-2016 cancelling its Notification dated 29-12-2015.

[3.3] Thereafter, the MPSC issued a fresh Notification dated 07-04-2016 inving applications, through online, for filling up the said 82 posts of different categories of service as mentioned therein through the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016  (hereinafter referred to as "the Examination, 2016") which was divided into two stages-one, the Preliminary Examination, 2016 and two, the Main Examination, 2016. As per the said Notification, the last date for submission of application forms was 30-04-2016 which was extended thrice thereafter vide Notifications dated 29-04-2016, 08-05-2016 and 11-05-2016 issued by the MPSC upto midnight of 12-05-2016.

[3.4] The Preliminary Examination, 2016 was held as per schedule on 15-05-2016 but unfortunately, it was cancelled vide Notification dated 03-06-2016 issued by the MPSC because of certain contradictory instructions given in para 9 of the test booklet of the said examination and the Preliminary Examination, 2016 was declared to be held on 03-07-2016. Accordingly, the Preliminary Examination, 2016 was held afresh on 03-07-2016 and the result thereof was declared on 08-07-2016 whereby 1130 (one thousand one hundred and thirty) candidates were declared successful with the further declaration that the Main Examination, 2016 would be held on 04-09-2016. As notified on 08-07-2016, the Main Examination, 2016 commenced from 04-09-2016 but the General Studies Paper which was earlier scheduled to be held on 05-09-2016, was re-scheduled on 23-09-2016 and thus, the Main Examination, 2016 continued till 23-09-2016 and the result thereof was declared on 04-10-2016.

[3.5] In the meantime, the State Government vide its Notification dated 04-03-2016 issued the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination (4th Amendment) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Competitive Examination Rules, 2016") by which clauses (iv) and (v) were inserted to Rule 6 of Chapter I of Schedule-II of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 and Chapter-II, Schedule-II(B), Note (ii) thereof were also amended. But this Notification dated 04-03-2016 was uploaded in the official website of the MPSC only on 04-09-2016 on which the Main Examination, 2016 was commenced by it.

[4] A large number of candidates who had appeared in the Main Examination, 2016, felt aggrieved by the various anomalies, irregularities and illegalities committed in the process of conducting it and accordingly, some of them approached the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur by way of a memorandum dated 07-10-2016, while others filed their applications under the RTI Act for furnishing information as regards their answer sheets. Two writ pettions being WP(C) No.803 of 2016 and WP(C) No.817 of 2017 came to be filed by the petitioners therein questioning the validity and correctness of the process of selection and praying for cancelling it. In other words, the said writ petitions were filed by them to redress their common grievances.

WP(C) No. 803 of 2016 & WP(C) No. 817 of 2016

[5.1] The above writ petition being WP(C) No.803 of 2016 was filed by as many as 111 candidates praying for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other apprpopriate writ to quash and aside the Main Examination, 2016 and also to issue a mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the State respondents to institute a High Level Probe Committee to investigate into the manner in which the Main Examination, 2016 was conducted by the MPSC. Similarly, the writ petition being WP(C) No.817 of 2016 was filed by ten petitioners praying for a writ of certiorari to direct the respondents to institute a High Level Court Supervised Commission/ Committee to investigate into the manner of conducting the Main Examination, 2016 and to issue appropriate direction to cancel it and to conduct a fresh checking, tabulating and scrutinizing in a free, fair and judicious manner. The contentions taken by the petitioners in these two writ petitions are almost identical and therefore, they are not referred to herein separately for the sake of brevity. Their contentions which are common in both the writ writ petitions and the additional contentions taken by them therein, are summarized as under:

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

(I) While the written instruction contained in the answer sheet provides that "no extra sheets will be provided at any circumstance and candidates will be penalized if the instructions are not followed, many candidates were provided with extra sheets in many rooms of the examination centers. The Official Respondents however claimed that oral announcement was made stating that extra sheets would be provided to those who ask for it. The appellants who were not aware of the announcement, were put to a disadvantage, since they tried to squeeze their answers in 34 pages, thereby violating Article 16 of the Constitution which provides for equality of opportunities in matters relating to public employment. Oral instructions cannot override the written instructions.

(II) The result of the Main Examination 2016 was declared post haste, since the examination of the last paper was concluded on 23.09.2016 and the result thereof was declared on 04.10.2016. This means that the MPSC took only about 11 days to check and evaluate a total of 9040 answer scripts. In every competitive examination held all over India, the process of evaluating answer scripts is very tedious and time consuming and the declaration of the result of the Main Examination, 2016 in just 11 days is unreasonable, unjustified and suspicious for the following reasons:

a) The normal process of evaluating answer scripts involves the process of collecting the answer scripts from different examination centers, pooling/ grouping of the answer scripts collected from different examination centres, coding, evaluating, scrutinizing, broad sheet tabulating, decoding and sorting out the reservation categories, such as the SCs, STs and OBCs. All these processes taken together is a very time consuming process and it is not reasonably possible to complete the task of evaluating 9040 answer scripts in just 11 days.

b) The type of questions to be answered in the Main Examination, 2016 is of essay type of 300 marks each and not of objective type / multiple choice questions (OMR answer sheets}. The checking of the answer scripts cannot be done electronically based on the bubbles darkened by candidates as was done in the case of the Preliminary Examination, 2016, the process of which took 5 days to complete in the case of the Preliminary Examination, 2016. It could not have been humanly possible to check and evaluate 9040 answer scripts judiciously within a span of 11 days.

c) In respect of the previous Civil services examinations, 2013 and 2014 for which the total number of candidates were 459 and 602 respectively conducted by the MPSC, it took about 2 months in declaring the result thereof. It is therefore unimaginable that the MPSC could have judiciously and fairly examined 9040 answer scripts in a span of just 11 days in the Main Examination, 2016.

d) Discounting the number of days for collecting, coding, decoding and scrutinizing and the number of holidays such as Gandhi Jayanti and the Sundays, the number of working days actually available for checking/ evaluating the answer scripts is about 5 days only. It is highly improbable that such a large quantity of answer scripts could have been judiciously and objectively evaluated in such a short time.

(III) The Notification dated 04.03.2016 which was uploaded on the official website of MPSC only on 04.09.2016, provides for simultaneous evaluation of the qualifying papers on 'English' and the other papers. Yet, the papers were not evaluated simultaneously thereby violating the above provision of law.

(IV) While the advertisement dated 07.04.2016 provides that the paper on General English will be of Matriculation or equivalent standard, the same Advertisement under the title Syllabi for the Examination, Part B: Main Examination provides that the aim of the paper on General English is to test the candidate's ability to read and understand serious discursive prose. The above two provisions are contradictory to each other for the simple reason that it will be highly improper for a candidate of Matriculate standard in English to expect to read and understand serious discursive prose. The norm laid down for comprehending General English under the two provisions is ambiguous and it is difficult to fathom the standard that the MPSC is expecting from the candidates.

(V) The qualifying marks for screening candidates in General English for the Main Examination 2016 is determined at 40% whereas the UPSC fixed the qualifying marks for screening candidates in General English in competitive examination (Civil Services Examination) at only 25%. Many other states in India also fix the qualifying marks for screening candidates in General English between 25 to 30 per cent. In the case of Hanjabam Bobby Sharma Vs. MPSC, bearing WP(C) No.31 of 2013 and WP(C) No.150 of 2013, this Court had directed the MPSC to fix the qualifying marks for the General English in consonance with the norms of the UPSC and other State Public Service Commissions. However, fixing the qualifying mark for General English at 40% which is much above the 25% fixed by the UPSC is against the direction given by this Court and also against the norm of the UPSC.

(VI) The rationale behind notifying the same in the official website of MPSC only on 04.09.2016 i.e. on the day of commencing the Main Examination 2016 was questioned as the same deprived the candidates an opportunity to prepare for the General English papers better and prioritize their strategy for preparing the Main Examination, 2016. This also provides room for favouritism and nepotism by the concerned authorities. A candidate scoring high marks in the Essay, General Studies and optional papers may be made to fail by manipulating his marks in General English.

(VII) The MPSC does not maintain guidelines for coding, checking, evaluating etc. the answer scripts and these were done in a haphazard and whimsical manner, thereby causing serious flaws on the manner of conducting the Main Examination, 2016. Further, the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to "the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011") clearly lays down that the evaluation & tabulation of answer books or sheets, as the case may be, shall be done as per procedure laid down by the MPSC. Evaluating the answer sheets without framing any procedure is in violation of the said Rules.

(VIII) In the earlier Main Examinations conducted by the MPSC, the qualifying mark for General English was fixed differently for General, OBCs, STs, SCs and physically challenged candidates. No such categorization is done in the Main Examination, 2016 and this puts a number of candidates belonging to different categories at a disadvantage.

(IX) There was no moderation or scaling of marks while evaluating the answer scripts of the candidates. In Sanjay Singh Vs. UP. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 and Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2013) 12 SCC 489, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the moderation (and scaling wherever appropriate) is inherent in such a competitive examination, more particularly, where a number of examiners and optional subjects are involved. If there is no moderation of marks, the whole examination has to be quashed.

(X) The MPSC cannot automatically convert the Preliminary Examination 2015 into the Preliminary Examination, 2016 and the Main Examination, 2015 to the Main Examination 2016, without issuing any order or notification.

STAND OF MPSC:

[5.2] Two affidavits-in-opposition have been filed by the Addl. Secretary on behalf of the MPSC, which are almost identical, wherein it has been stated that the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 came to be amended and a Notification dated 04-03-2016 issued by the DP, Government of Manipur, was published in the Manipur Gazette on 05-03-2016 and the amended Note-II thereof provides that the evaluation of papers of all the candidates will be done simultaneously with that of the qualifying paper 'English' but the papers on 'Essay', 'General Studies' and 'Optional subjects' of such candidates will be taken cognizance who obtain minimum 40% marks in the qualifying paper 'General English'. No one raised any objection to it but the objection was raised in the writ petitions, only after they had failed to qualify in the Main Examination, 2016. In respect of General studies Paper-II, all the details could not be mentioned in the syllabus and it was only to test the common sense, calculation and reasoning desired from the candidates. Since the examination was conducted in terms of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010, there was no scope of manipulation, favouritism and nepotism. The MPSC started coding exercise as soon as the examination of the first paper was concluded and the evaluation of the answer sheets was started simultaneously soon thereafter. The MPSC could complete the process of evaluation of the answer sheets within a short span of time by engaging more manpower and by starting the evaluation process right from the next day of starting the examination and also by calling the experts for the evaluation to the MPSC's office. Only in case where the number of answer sheets for a particular subject was very few and the expert examiners were not available readily, those answer sheets were taken personally by the Secretary to the expert examiners outside Manipur for evaluation and he brought those answer sheets after completion of the evaluation. The experts who evaluated the answer sheets, were given full liberty and time to evaluate the answer sheets and no pressure whatsoever was exerted on them to finish early. In respect of previous years, there were shortage of manpower and since the answer sheets were sent outside the State for evaluation, a lot of time was taken in the evaluation. After completion of the evaluation of the answer sheets by the expert examiners for different subjects, the MPSC with the help of lecturers from different colleges and higher secondary schools scrutinized the answer sheets and checked for any error in totaling the marks, any un-evaluated answer, any excess attempt in answering the questions etc. and only after the completion of such process, the result of the Main Examination, 2016 was declared. There arose no question of tampering or manipulation of the marks obtained by the candidates and there was no chance of exercising favouritism and nepotism. Due to oversight and bonafide mistake, the previous instructions regarding non-issuance of extra-sheets were repeated and on realizing thereof, the MPSC through the invigilators/ supervisors informed all the candidates by announcing in the examination halls that extra sheets would be issued to all the candidates and accordingly, many candidates including some of the petitioners, took extra-sheets. The instruction that 'no extra sheets will be provided at any circumstances' did not cause any prejudice and no complaint of denial of extra sheets was received and moreover, the petitioners having failed in the Main Examination, 2016 have no locus standi to challenge the procees of the selection.

[5.3] In the affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent Nos.4 to 18, it has been stated that it was wrong on the part of the petitioners to presume that the result of the Main Examination, 2016 could not have been declared on 04-10-2016, when the evaluation had already started on 09-09-2016. The MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011, being confidential one, the petitioners could not have claimed access to it. The petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof of allegations. The petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands and were guilty of suppression of material facts. Some of the professors had declared that the evaluation of 70 or more answer scripts in 8/9 hours a day was possible. The petitioners failed to produce any material as to how the coding was done nor had they indicated the actual time taken as per official record. The evaluation of the Education Paper-I was started on 11-09-2016 and was continued till 23-09-2016 for a total of 13 days. There is no mandatory rule that all the answer scripts of the Education Paper-I have to be evaluated and completed in a day. The evaluation of the Public Administration Paper-I and II was started from 22-09-2016 and was completed on 03-10-2019 and therefore, the allegation that the result could not have been declared on 04-10-2016, was misconceived. It is nowhere mentioned in the MPSC Rules that the Secretary, MPSC could not leave station during the period of examination and could not delegate his power and functions to the concerned competent officials during his absence.There is no provision in the MPSC Rules which prohibits the evaluation of answer scripts by the evaluators who reside outside Manipur. There is no provision in the MPSC Rules which bars the Secretary, MPSC to hand over charge to the Addl. Secretary, MPSC to look after the duties of the Secretary, MPSC in his absence. When the rule is silent, the implication would be that the MPSC would have the power to exercise its duties in furtherance of its objectives.

[6.1] On 13-10-2016 when the WP(C) No.803 of 2016 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge, while issuing notice to the respondents, directed that the result of the viva voce should not be declared till 19-10-2016 on which date the matter was to be listed for further consideration. In view of the importance of the case and public interest involved, the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 21-12-2016 fast tracked the hearing of the matter on merit proposing to dispose of the matter at an early date. The learned Single Judge observed as under:

"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 th 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, dispellinig 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 Couert 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 adopte by the Manipur Public Service Commission in conducting the Main Examination, more particularly, relating to the evaluation of the answer scripts, as discussed above."

Considering the urgency and importance of the matter, the learned Single Judge felt that a Commission be appointed for which the Director, Manipur Judicial Academy was requested to be the Commissioner who might appoint any other experts for his assistance. The Commission was given the authority to examine all the documents and papers and to examine such persons, officials or evaluators involved in the entire exercise of evaluation, beginning with codification upto the stage of tabulation and declaration of the results. The Commission was also given the authority to have access to the answer scripts of all the candidates as it might consider appropriate. The MPSC was directed to extend full cooperation to the Commission for undertaking the execrse. Three reports dated 13-01-2017 were submitted by the Commission, copies thereof were directed to be furnished to the counsel appearing for the MPSC. After the reading of all the reports, the petitioners were of the view that the reports were not unanimous and many differences of opinion were there in them. The enquiry was not judiciously carried out and was unsatisfactory. Being aggrieved with the findings of the report, the instant writ petition being WP(C) No.60 of 2017 was filed by the petitioners who are also the petitioners in WP(C) No.803 of 2016.

WP(C) No. 60 of 2017:

[6.2] The contentions taken by the petitioners in WP(C) No.60 of 2017 are summarised as under:

(a) As per the enquiry report, the Enquiry Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") visited the office of the MPSC five times i.e on 27-12-2016, 28-12-2016, 29-12-2016, 02-01- 2017 and 11-01-2017, while Shri P. Milan Khangamcha, the member stated to have visited the office from 27-12-2016 to 30-12-2016 and in January 2017 and this created doubt and confusion as regards the number of days it visited.

(b) The enquiry was conducted one-sidedly by the Commission with prior intention to prove that the conduct of the Examination was carried out without any unholy haste on the part of the MPSC. The Commission never made an effort to verity the correctness of the statements made by the MPSC's officials by way of cross checking or by way of examining all the important examiners/ evaluators but examined only one examiner, who is the evaluator of Essay Paper and as such it was not carried out in the light of the direction given by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 21/12/2016.

(c) In his report, Shri M. Binoykumar Singh, Director, Judicial Academy, Imphal obserbved that the process of moderation and scaling of marks was not adopted by the MPSC. Non-adoption is bad in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including that of Sanjay Singh Vs U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 738 and Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 499.

(d) The Commission blindly accepted the statement of the MPSC as true and correct without making an effort to interview the invigilators/ Supervisors who were employed in the Main Examination, 2016 and this led to the premature conclusion ot the report regarding extra paper issue. Shri B K Sharma, in his report opined that the MPSC should have published a notification about the availability of extra papers and the same should have been circulated for proper notice of the candidates

(e) The report is silent as to how and under what circumstances, the correction of 75 answer scripts in a day was allowed by the MPSC.

(f) After reading the report of Shri P. Milan Khangamcha, it can be well said that he did not have any knowledge of the Instructions to candidates "Do's and Don'ts" as given by the MPSC at the answer scripts nor was he informed about such instruction by the MPSC intentionally during the course of the enquiry.

(g) In the affidavit filed on behalf of the MPSC, it has been stated that only when the number of answer sheets for a particular subject were very few and expert examiners were not available readily, those answer sheets were taken outside Manipur for evaluation and he brought those answer sheets after completion of the evaluation, the report submitted by Shri P. Milan Khangamcha had shown that an expert who was employed for evaluating Essay Paper, had taken 300-400 answer-booklets to his residence at his home town for evaluation. Moreover, as per the oral submission of the respondent no.1 before this Court, the subjects which the Secretary, MPSC had taken outside Manipur personally for evaluation included Chemistry, Law, Psychology, Geology, Anthropology, Physics, Philosophy, Civil Engg. Mechanical Engg, Electrical Engg, Hindi while the first oral submission was that the subjects were History, Economics, Computer Science.

(h) The Commission had no knowledge about the Secretary, MPSC being out of station for 10 (ten) days and it was under the impression that the Secretary, MPSC was present in the office of the MPSC while the process of the Main Examination, 2016 was going on and therefore, it had erroneously pointed out that coding, evaluation and decoding process was done in the personal presence of the Secretary, MPSC.

(i) In the report of Shri P. Milan Khagemcha and Shri M. Binoykumar, it has been shown that the number of persons who knew the confidential codes are 9 (nine) persons namely the Secretary, MPSC, P.A to the Secretary, MPSC, Additional Secretary, MPSC and other officials of the MPSC. The confidentiality and care could not have been maintained by them specially when the Secretary, MPSC was out of station from 15-09-2016 to 24-09-2016. As per the chart prepared and filed before this court along with the affidavit-in-opposition, the optional papers which were conducted and/or evaluated during the Secretary's absence were- Commerce, Management, Chemistry, Law, Psychology. Geology, Anthropology, Physics, Philosophy, Civil Engg, Mechanical Engg, Electrical Engg, Hindi.

(j) Ther was a difference of opinion between Shri P. Milan Khangamcha and Shri M. Binoykumar Singh as regards the time taken by the MPSC while completing the codification. The report of Shri P. Milan Khangamcha explaining as to how coding was done, was contrary to what is there in the answer sheet.

(k) In the report of Shri P. Milan Khangamcha, the statement of the Secrtary, MPSC was recorded that the keys were always in his personal custody and all these works were done in his presence and under direct personal supervisions. That had shown that during the absence of the Secretary, MPSC, no evaluation process was carried out as he was out of station for evaluation of certain subjects during the period from 15/09/2016 to 24/09/2016.

(l) On perusal of the report, it is seen that the commission was not aware of the rules framed by the MPSC, may be, for the reason that they were not informed about it. In the MPSC Conduct of Business (Confidential) Rule, it has been provided under the headings "Examination Programme" 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 the procedures laid down by the Commission. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the MPSC, it has been stated that the experts who evaluated the answer sheets, were given full liberty and time to evaluate the answer sheets and no pressure whatsoever was exerted on them to finish early. But the time taken by the evaluator, i.e., 15 hours a day with only one hour break at lunch time cannot be termed as 'without pressure.'

(m) Shri P. Milan Khangamcha, a member of the Commission had no knowledge of the term 'Moderation' and he went to assume highly of himself as an expert who has a fair amount of experience and knowledge in the field of Education.

(n) On perusal of the report, it is seen that neither Shri P. Milan Khangamcha nor Shri M. Binoykumar Singh, Director, Judicial Academy actually did have any knowledge about how many pages are there in the answer script which was provided to the candidates in the instant examination.

(o) The written instruction as provided in the answer booklet, could not have been changed by any oral instruction without any order or notification.

(p) The report did not mention anything about the issue relating to the subject of Public Administration for which the evaluation was completed only on 03/10/2016 and the result was declared in the morning of the next day i.e., 04/10/2016. The declaration of the result could not have been possible without the time consuming procedures/ exercises of scrutiny, moderation, tabulation, decoding etc.

JUDGMENT & ORDER OF THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE

[7.1] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, the learned Single Judge vide its common judgment and order dated 28-02-2017, dismissed all the three writ petitions and while dismissing them, the learned Single Judge considered the several pleas raised by the petitioners in challenging the results of the Main Examinations, 2016 which are as under:

"(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."

[7.2] The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was mainly based on the reports submitted by the Commission which concluded that on the basis of the materials, there was no undue haste on the part of the MPSC in managing and getting the result of the Main Examination, 2016 announced and 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.

[7.3] When the reports of the Commission were assailed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.60 of 2017, the learned Single Judge observed that the Commision was appointed for a limited purpose and for the satisfaction of this Court only about the credibility of the allegations made in the face of denial by the MPSC. The learned Single Judge further observed that 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 its 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.

[7.4] As regards the various points raised by the petitioners, the observations made by the learned Single Judge are summarised as under:

"(a) 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. The involvement of 9 persons during codification cannot be said to be an ideal situation, which would require reconsideration by the MPSC.

(b) 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. 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. 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.

(c) With regard to the contention that it would be humanly impossible to read, much less evaluate so many answer scripts within such a short period of time, it obserbed that 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.

(d) As regards the non announcement by way of written information/ notification that the candidates can take extra sheets, the learned Single Judge agreed with the contention of the petitioners that in absence of a written notification, mere verbal announcement would not meet the requirement of law. It held that 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. 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. 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.

(e) As regards the Notification dated 4th March, 2016 by which the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 was amended providing for simultaneous evaluation of the papers, the learned Single Judge was was 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 has produced a copy of the Notification dated 04.03.2016 which was published in the extraordinary Manipur Gazette on 5th  March, 2016. The word "simultaneously" which means "at the same time" 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. Since the evaluation of these papers was done more or less concurrently, there had been no substantial violation of the aforesaid rules.

(f) 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. In the absence of a rule, 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.

(g) As regards the contention 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 learned Single Judge held 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.

(h) Because of the 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 are they conclusive as regards the various allegations and issues raised.

(i) 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 and in particular, as regards codification, the learned Single Judge was 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.

(j) With reference to sub-rule (xii) of Rule 26-B of the aforesaid rules, the learned Single Judge held that it is not disclosed either in the affidavit-in-opposition nor in the report as to when the Controller of Examination took such decision about the number of answer-books to be provided to each examiner which are to be examined on an single day. 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.

(k) 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 has the report also mentioned 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.

(l) 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.

(m) 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."

WA No. 19 of 2017 and WA No. 29 of 2017

[8.1] The above appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 28-02-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions being WP(C) No.803 of 2016, WP(C) No.817 of 2016 and WP(C) No.60 of 2017 by which the said writ petitions had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

[8.2] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Single Judge, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals inter-alia on the following grounds which are identical and common therein:

GROUNDS OF APPEALS:

I. The learned single Judge erred in not appreciating that the Main Examination 2016 was conducted in a haphazard manner and without following the relevant rules and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In spite of several anomalies and lapses in the manner of conducting the examination and in the evaluation of the answer scripts, as admitted by this Court, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere and quash the result of the examination under the garb of limitation of the powers of the Hon'ble Court under judicial review.

II. The learned Single Judge erred in not entertaining WP(C) No. 60 of 2017 which challenges the reports of the Commission even though it observed that the said Commission did not make any conclusive findings of relevant facts. Therefore, relying on the said inconclusive report to derive conclusions to the issues raised in the present writ petitions, is a miscarriage of justice and unlawful exercise of judicial discretion. To meet the end of justice and to have a fair judicial review, the Hon'ble High Court should have ordered a full scale and extensive enquiry in the face of serious lapses, as indicated by the Hon'ble High Court

III. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the Commission submitted three separate reports-one, by the Commissioner and two, the members. The learned Single Judge relied on only the report of the Commissioner. The report of the Commissioner relied heavily on the report of Dr. Milan, whose report is highly opinionated and heavily biased against the appellants. Had all the three reports been considered, the learned Single Judge would have noticed the serious lapses and irregularities in the manner of evaluating the answer scripts. Several lapses and irregularities on the part of the MPSC, independently noticed by the learned Single Judge, but ought to have been pointed out by the Commission, may be highlighted as follows:

a) All the three reports of the Commission reported that the Secretary, MPSC who also act as the Controller of examination was in direct and personal control of the said examination and yet, he was out of the state of Manipur from 15.09.2016 to 24.09.2016, for taking personally answer scripts of several subjects for evaluating outside Manipur.

Thus, the observation of the Commission that the coding evaluation and decoding process were done in the personal presence of the Secretary, MPSC, is not tenable.

b) If the Secretary, MPSC left the State of Manipur from 15.09.2016 to 24.09.2016, it was not reflected in any of the reports, indicating thereby that the Commission had no idea about his absence from Manipur. The report submitted by Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha indicated that all confidential documents, khattas, the codified and decodified master copies were kept in the strong room, the keys of which were always under the safe custody of the Secretary, MPSC. That being so, when he was out of station, the coding, decoding, evaluation etc. would have stopped for want of the keys of the strong room.

c) The Commission could not verify the exact number of answer scripts taken by the Essay evaluator to his hometown outside Manipur for evaluating the remaining answer scripts. Therefore, the statement of the Secretary that the evaluation of the papers took place in the MPSC office under his supervision, is erroneous and false.

d) The report submitted by Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha described that the codification was done after the evaluated answer scripts were brought back by the responsible person to the Secretary, MPSC. This is in violation of the codification process in any competitive examination including the present one.

e) Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha's report indicated that the answer sheets provided by the MPSC in the Main Examination, 2016 contain 40 pages though it had only 34 pages. This clearly demonstrates the casual and sloppy manner in which the fact finding was conducted by the Commission.

IV. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the reports submitted by the Commission failed to fathom the mandate of the MPSC as directed by the Hon'ble Court in its order dated 21.12.2016. For instance, the Commission was instructed specifically to look into the possible issue of compromise, where the evaluation of the paper on Public Administration was completed on 03.10.2016 and the result was declared the morning of the next day i.e. 04.10.2016. But the reports make no mention or observation on this issue. The judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 which relied heavily on the said reports therefore suffers from legal infirmity and, if implemented, will cause a great miscarriage of justice. V. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the well settled legal principle that oral instructions cannot override written instructions. Assuming but not admitting that verbal announcement was made during the examination that candidates can take extra sheets, the learned Single Judge in its judgment observed that mere verbal announcement would not meet the requirement of law and thus held that there had been infraction of the rules, irregularity and serious lapse on the part of the MPSC and the examination could not be held as lawful. However, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that unless such infraction of the rules, irregularity and serious lapse did not materially affect the examination and/ or had caused grave prejudice to the candidates, the present examination process could not be vitiated. The learned Single Judge has overlooked the well settled principle of law that there is violation of a person's right if legal injury is caused to him even when there is no damage.

The learned Single Judge has entered into the merits of the decision while at the same time claiming that it is beyond the scope of judicial review of the Hon'ble Court. This contradiction is illustrated in the following paragraphs.

a) The learned Single Judge, in its order dated 21.12.2016 and the judgement and order dated 28.02.2017, has reiterated that judicial review is concerned not with the merits 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.

b) The learned Single Judge through the Commission did not undertake any exhaustive or extensive enquiry into the seriously disputed question of facts. Yet the learned Single Judge based its judgement entirely on the conclusion of the Commission, which itself was under challenge before this Court.

c) The learned Single Judge after referring to the table/chart showing the number of days taken in evaluating the answer sheets, the number of candidates who availed of the extra sheets etc., came to the conclusion that "in absence of any material to show that the petitioners had suffered prejudice by this alleged violation of rules, this Court was not inclined to interfere on this ground". Yet, the Hon'ble Court recognized that there are serious lapses on the part of MPSC in the manner of conducting the Main Examination 2016.

d) Thus, entering into the merit of the decision of the MPSC, the learned Single Judge directed the Commission to look into this aspect of extra sheets. The Commissioner did not undertake any such enquiry but simply refers to Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha's report. The reports of the Commissioner and Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha were challenged in WP(C) No.60 of 2017, but the Hon'ble Court dismissed it without considering the same. The crucial facts and evidences have not been considered by the learned Single Judge while arriving at the final decision.

Several candidates tried to squeeze their answers within the 34 pages originally allotted since the Instruction in the Answer Booklet provides that the candidates will be penalised if they fail to observe the instructions. The appellants fail to understand what kind of material evidence is required for the learned Single Judge's satisfaction that the instructions has not prejudiced the candidates. In fact, many petitioners left blank spaces/pages because of the squeeze in their answers.

VI. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that Shri N. Brajakanta Singh, a member of the Commission, in his report observed that in his opinion, the outsider evaluator (of Essay), even though he had extra qualifications, did not evaluate the answer scripts with utmost diligence and thus, he indicated his dissatisfaction about the evaluation of the answer scripts. In this regard Shri N. Brajakanta Singh was applying the Wednesbury's principle of reasonableness. Thus, the examination was tainted with mala fide intention and unlawful exercise of discretion.

VII. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the MPSC violated its own rules as regards evaluation of answer scripts and tabulation of marks. Rule 26-B of the MPSC Rules 2011 provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the evaluation & tabulation of answer books or sheets as the case may be, shall be done as procedure laid down by the Commission". The MPSC did not frame any rules to guide the evaluation and tabulation, and this exercise was conducted as per the whims and fancies of the officials of the MPSC.

VIII. The learned Single Judge erred in misconstruing the principle of judicial review. The learned Single Judge, while adopting the legal parameters governing the law relating to judicial review and applying   the   principle   of   Wednesbury's   reasonableness, observed that judicial review has inherent limitations by way of self restraint on the part of the Court to intervene in absence of clearly demonstrable wrong or patent illegality. In Chairman, All India  Railway  Recruitment  Board  Vs.  K.  Shyam  Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately pointed out the grounds to be tested is under the three principal heads, namely, (i) illegality, (ii) procedural impropriety and (iii) irrationality. Applying the above mentioned principle of reasonableness, the manner of conducting the Main Examination 2016, the process of evaluation etc. undertaken by the MPSC should have been tested by the learned Single Judge. Had the learned Single Judge tested the issue of reasonableness on the line formulated above, it would have invoked the power of judicial review to interfere with the examination conducted by the MPSC. Therefore, in the absence of such tests, the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge suffers from the requirement of a fair and just judicial review.

IX. The  learned  Single  Judge  erred  in  not  appreciating  that  the issues in the present petition could have been tested applying the  principle  of  proportionality  also.  Referring  to  the  decision rendered in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651,  the  learned  Single  Judge  in  exercise  of  judicial  review examined the existence of (i) illegality. (ii) irrationality and (iii) procedural  impropriety,  and  claims  to  have  not  entered  into merits  of  the  decision  made.  However,  the  principle  of proportionality  empowers  the  Hon'ble  Court  to  examine  the merits of the decision made rather than  limiting its scope by applying  the  principle  of  Wednesbury's  reasonableness  only. This  position  of  law  is  succinctly  rendered  by  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Prabha D. Kanan (2006) 11 SCC 67. The view expressed in the above case was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board Vs. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614. Further, in Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "The fact that in some jurisdictions, doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to doctrine of proportionality is beyond any dispute."

X. The learned single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court erred in not entertaining the Issues regarding wrong questions and out-of-syllabus questions by stating that "this Court is not inclined to enter into this disputed arena which would require expert opinion, in exercise of power of judicial review'. By following the principle governing judicial review under Article 226 is interpreted above, the learned Single Judge should have invoked the power of judicial review to guarantee fair and equal opportunity to all candidates.

XI. The  learned  Single  Judge  erred  in  not  appreciating  that moderation is inherent in any large scale examination in order to eliminate "examiner variability or "hawk-dove effect and to bring uniformity  and  consistency  to  the  marks  awarded  to  the candidates  interms  of  the  decision  rendered  by  the  Hon'ble Supreme  Court  in  Sanjay  Singh  Vs.  U.P.  Public  Service Commission, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720 which was upheld and relied upon by subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 489 and= Sunil Kumar Vs. Bihar Civil Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495.

XII. The learned Single Judge erred in not considering many issues and facts which came to light during the course of hearing and also on perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the MPSC, some of which are detailed as follows:

a. The Secretary, MPSC assumed the charge of Controller of Examination, whereas the MPSC Conduct of Business (Confidential) Rules provides for two different functionaries to assume different functions.

b. There are instances of coding done in the absence of the Secretary who is also the Controller of Examination whereas coding should have been supervised by the Controller of Examinations.

c. No Evaluation Rule was framed, though necessitated by the MPSC Rules 2011.

d. The total number of answer sheets to be evaluated by an evaluation and the maximum number of answer sheets to be evaluated in a day are not spelt out, as is required under the MPSC Rules 2011. This is in contrast to the examination norms adopted by other similar institutions like UPSC, CBSE, NIOS, etc.

e. The Secretary, MPSC was out of station from 15.09.2016 to 24.09.2016. He personally took the answer scripts of many subjects for evaluating outside Manipur. However, during the course of hearing it was stated by the MPSC that the answer scripts of the subjects for which the examination was held on 15.09.2016 were actually sent by post on the next date, i.e. 16.09.2016. Evaluation of these answer scripts apparently started on 17.09.2016 (Sunday) which is highly suspicious, since the same could not have been delivered before 17.09.2016.

f. The Affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Addl. Secretary, MPSC stated at para no. 8 that only in case when the number of answer sheets for a particular subject were very few and experts examiners are not available readily, those answer sheets were taken personally by the Secretary to the expert examiners outside Manipur for evaluation and brought those answer sheets after completion of the evaluation. The same affidavit further stated that the Secretary, MPSC personally took all the concerned subjects for evaluation outside the State. Only when vehemently contested by the writ petitioners, the MPSC admitted that the answer scripts of those subjects the examination of which was conducted on 15.09.2016 were actually sent by post on the next date, i.e 16.09.2016. Such false statement of the MPSC was vehemently protested by the writ petitioners and pleaded to make the concerned official liable for perjury, and yet the learned Single Judge was silent on the issue.

XIII. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the Commission suffers from several anomalies and irregularities. The learned Single Judge himself observed that the findings of the Commission are neither final nor conclusive and yet, it relied heavily on the observations of the Commission and based his judgement those findings. Some of the shortcomings and irregularities of the said Commission are briefly stated below:

i. Regarding the issue of extra sheets, the Commission relied entirely on the words of the Secretary, MPSC that there was an announcement to allow candidates to take extra sheets. It had not examined or questioned any of the invigilators, supervisors or candidates to verify the statement of the Secretary, MPSC.

ii. The Commission was not aware that the Secretary, MPSC was out of station from 15-09-2016 to 24.09.2016 and hence, makes no mention of the official who acts as Controller of Examination in the absence of the Secretary, MPSC.

iii. The Commission did not examine how the scrutiny, moderation, tabulation, decoding etc. for the subject of Public Administration subject (995 Answer scripts) could be completed on a single day. The evaluation of this subject was completed on 03.10.2016 and the result of the Examination was declared in the morning of next day i.e. on 04.10.2016.

iv. The report by Dr. P. Milan states that a single evaluator can evaluate the papers of Chemistry 1 & 1I and also Political Science I & II. Evaluation of such subjects requires specialists in each paper and could not be evaluated judiciously by just one evaluator. The reports by the other members make nothing of the issue.

v. The Enquiry Commission did not make any mention of questions being asked out of syllabus, since the matter was not referred to by the learned Single Judge. It did not make any mention about the necessity of fixing different marks for General, OBC, SC, ST etc. categories of candidates to qualify the paper on General English.

vi. With respect to the issue of simultaneous evaluation of answer scripts of all the subjects as provided in the MCSCC Examination (4th amendment) Rules, 2010, the report by Mr. M. Binoykumar states that there is no such rule while the other members make no mention.

vii. On the issue whether it is practicable or humanly possible to judiciously evaluate about 70-75 answer scripts by a single examiner per day, the Commission examined only one evaluator who evaluates Essay paper. The Commission simply observed that it is tenable without assigning any valid reason. However, it is also stated the Essay evaluator was allowed to take 300-400 khattas of Essay paper to evaluate at his residence in his home town and the same was allowed to be handed over to an MPSC authorized agent for codification.

XIV. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that ordinarily many academic institutions and Examination Boards/ Councils in India do not allow examiners to evaluate more than 25 answer sheets per evaluator per day. While the learned Single Judge observed that evaluating about 70 answer scripts by an evaluator in a Single day is not an ideal situation, it is left to experts to decide on a future date.

XV. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that it is humanly impossible to codify large number of answer scripts in a fraction of a second. The process of coding the roll numbers of the candidates is a time consuming process. It requires, among others, verifying the roll numbers, writing the codes (fake roll numbers) on two sides of the front page of the answer sheet, tearing off a portion of the page containing the code and so on. Based on the submission made by the MPSC's counsel that coding took only half an hour, coding for 881 answer sheets in Education Paper I could have taken 2.04 seconds per answer script, and that tor 19/8 answer sheets in General Studies 0.91 seconds per-answer script. Based on the submission made later on by the MPSC's counsel that coding took only two hours, coding for 881 answer scripts in Education Paper could have taken 8.17 seconds per answer sheet, and that for 1978 answer sheets in General Studies 3.64 seconds per answer script.

XVI. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that, as per clause (xi) of section 26-B (Examination Programme), ordinarily six weeks time shall be allowed for return of assessed answer-books by the examiner, but the Controller of Examination may in special circumstances and on request made by the examiner, extend the time by 15 days. This clearly shows that the number of days allotted to an examiner is ordinarily six weeks and anything to the contrary is ultra vires the MPSC Rules.

XVII. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that as per clauses (v),(vii) and (x) of section 26-B (Examination Programme), the role and duties of the Controller of Examination could not be assigned to the MPSC Secretary, since these two functionaries are assigned different roles under the MPSC Rules. Therefore, the MPSC Secretary being the Controller of Examination for the purpose of the present Main Examination is ultra vires the MPSC Rules 2011.

XVIII. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the MPSC Rules 2011 does not provide for taking the answer scripts outside Manipur for evaluation. Thus, carrying many answer sheets on many subjects to evaluators outside of Manipur by the MPSC Secretary himself is ultra vires the Rules. The MPSC Secretary could not have been part of the examination process such as coding evaluation etc. of the subjects the examination of which were conducted in between 15.09.2016 and 24.09.2016, since he was out of station during the period. Moreover, carrying many answer sheets on many subjects to evaluators outside of Manipur by the MPSC Secretary himself will compromise confidentiality, safety and secrecy of the answer sheets.

XIX. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the conclusion of the Commission that there is no irregularity in the conduct of the examination when it relied only on the statement of the MPSC Secretary and examined only one evaluator. It had not examined any of the other stakeholders.

WP(C) No. 606 of 2017 & WP(C) No. 725 of 2017

[9.1] By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the Main Examination 2016 and to quash and aside the orders dated 22/06/2017; dated 22/06/2017 and dated 26/06/2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary, (D.P), Government of Manipur and also the order dated 23/06/2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, thereby appointing 79 successful candidates so far, to the various posts of MCS, MPS, SDC, MSS and any other further appointments related to the outcome of the Main Examination 2016. Further prayers have been made to direct to hold the Main Examination 2016, afresh which was notified as per Notification dated 07/04/2016 for the end of justice and to direct the CBI to investigate into the manner in which the Main Examination, 2016 was held and to hold the then Secretary, MPSC and such other responsible officials/ persons and the successful candidates who had participated in collusion with the then Secretary, MPSC in the conduct of the Main Examination 2011 liable and punish them in accordance to law.

[9.2] According to the petitioners, some of them are also the petitioners in WP (C) No.803 of 2016, WP(C) No.817 of 2016 and WP(C) No.60 of 2017. The petitioners in WP(C) No.803 of 2016 and WP(C) No.817 of 2016 challenged the Main Examination, 2016 praying for quashing / cancelling it while the petitioners in WP(C) No.60 of 2017 challegend the validity and correctness of the report submitted by the Commission appointed by this Court to examine the issues raised in the above two writ petitions. The learned Single Judge vide its common judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 dismissed all the said writ petitions.

[9.3] Consequent upon the common judgment and order dated 28.02.2017, the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur issued orders dated 22.06.2017, 22.06.2017, 26.06.2017 while the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Governnment of Manipur issued order dated 23.06.2017 thereby appointing 79 successful candidates to the various posts of MCS, MPS, SDC and MSS.

[9.4] In the meanwhile, the petitioners and many other candidates applied for copies of their answer scripts under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and on receipt of copies of some of their answer scripts and on perusal thereof, the petitioners found several anomalies, patent irregularities and illegalities in the evaluation of answer scripts, as is evident  from  the  copies  of  the  answer  scripts  of  some  of  them.  An illustration is the tampering / manipulation of marks in some of the answer scripts of the candidates. Some of the irregularities are:

(i) In many answer scripts, there is no signature of the examiner in the space provided for in the front page where the examiner is required to put his/her signature mandatorily;

(ii) Some of the answer scripts have different signatures of examiners and although the MPSC observed that only one examiner was utilized for evaluation, it submitted, during the hearing of the above referred writ petitions, a chart indicating the number of examiners utilized for evaluation of different papers.

(iii) In some answer scripts, many different signatures were found in a single answer script indicating thereby that many evaluators had evaluated a single answer script or some of the signatures were forged. A sample copy of a single answer script is produced here for brevity

(iv) The answer scripts furnished by the MPSC so far has no signature of the scrutinizer. For brevity all the answer scripts lacking signature of the scrutinizer are not produced herewith. However, the same may be produced as and when the Hon'ble Court directs to do so.

(v) There are errors in totaling of marks in some of the answer scripts while in some of the answer scripts, the allotted marks were altered without the signatures authenticating such alteration.

(vi) The alteration made in marks inside the answer scripts are authenticated by a person other than the examiner without reflecting it in the tabulation chart of the front page.

(vii) In some of the answer scripts, marks were not allotted in respect of some answers while in some others, full marks were allotted even when the candidates had attempted only a portion of the question and in some, full marks were allotted for incorrect answers

(viii) There are several other anomalies found in the answer scripts of many other candidates which are not produced herein to save the time of the Hon'ble Court and to reduce the petition from being voluminous.

[9.5] In terms of the observations made by the learned Single Judge granting liberty to the petitioners while disposing of the WP(C) No.803 of 2016, WP(C) No.817 of 2016 and WP(C) No.60 of 2017 to the effect that they were not debarred from approaching before this Court, in the event, if patent irregularities or illegalities found out by them, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions on the inter-alia

GROUNDS:

[i] There are numerous patent irregularities, illegalities and malpractices in the evaluation of the answer scripts as is observed from the RTI copies of the answer scripts. The single bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur in the judgment and common order dated 28.02.2017 was pleased to allow the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, if any patent illegalities or irregularities are found, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as follows:

"65 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 seekin9 redressal before the appropriate forum in future if any patent illegalities or irregularities are disclosed after getting necessary information as mentioned above."

[ii] The marks awarded in the answer scripts in the present instance do not indicate the merit of the examinees, since marks are given by different persons and not by the examiner alone. In several answer scripts, there are no signatures of the examiners, thay are the ones who have to insert the marks and to fill up the tabulation of marks. The absence of signatures of the examiners proves that the said answer scripts are not officially evaluated. The scheme of fairness and meticulousness in evaluation, which shall be the hallmark for such examination, is deliberately flouted by the MPSC. Therefore, the merit list notified by the MPSC vide Notification dated 04.10.2016 is untenable in the eyes of law.

[iii] The marks are awarded finally after series of alterations made by persons other than the examiner against the initially allotted marks, which are filled in the boxes provided for in the front page of the answer scripts. This aptly shows that the final marks are allotted by persons other than the examiner without considering the merit of the answers written by the candidates. Therefore, the marks awarded in the answer scripts cannot be said to have indicated the merit of the answers written by the candidates. On the contrary, marks are allotted selectively by persons other than the examiner. Therefore, the evaluation process of the Main Examination, 2016 was conducted in violation of the examination rules with a malafide intention to select predetermined few handful of candidates.

[iv] The marks in several answer scripts are allotted by persons other than the examiner which is amply evidenced from the followings:

a. In several answer scripts, the signatures authenticating the alteration of marks inside the answer scripts do not match with the signatures of the examiners and hence, the altered marks shown in the tabulation (front page) of the answer scripts are not entered by the examiner;

b. The tabulation of marks found in the front page of several answer scripts does not reflect authenticated changes or modifications of marks allotted inside the answer scripts;

c. There is wide variation in the signatures of the examiners in the subjects, even though the MPSC had stated that only one examiner was utilized for evaluation. The wide variation in the signature can be easily ascertained by the naked eyes which clearly demonstrates that the said paper is evaluated by person(s) other than the examiner

[v] The evaluation of the answer scripts was done in a very casual and shoddy manner as Is evident from the following illustration:

a. There are errors in totaling of marks in some of the answer scripts

b. Marks are not allotted in some answers

c. For some answers, full marks are given for partial answers.

d. In several cases, full marks had been given for incorrect answers.

[vi] The discovery of several answer scripts without signature of the examiners cannot be termed as bonafide mistake for the simple reason that it is not a solitary occurrence but such occurrence of several patent illegalities which corroborate that it is inevitably malafide. The several other patent illegalities are elaborated in the foregoing paras.

[vii] There are gross manipulation and tampering of marks in the evaluation of the answer scripts, with connivance of persons other than the examiner. The evidences are so obvious that no reasonable authority could ever have decided to do so. The scope of scrutiny by the Court in such situation has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 and also in BSNL v. Surendra Nath Pandey, (2011) 15 SCC 81.

[ix] The aforementioned unfair practices, patent illegalities and irregularities observed in the Main Examination, 2016 cannot be stated to be bonafide mistakes. On the contrary, the illegalities are inflicted with intent and meticulous calculation by the officials of the MPSC who are responsible for conducting it. Therefore, the public office of the MPSC was misused by officials of the MPSC with intent to select predetermined candidates. It may thus be appreciated that the absurd and perverse manner of conducting the aforesaid examination is done in collusion with officials of the MPSC and parties who got the deceitful gain.

FURTHER STAND OF THE MPSC:

[9.6] The stand of the MPSC as indicated in its affidavit filed on 20-08-2018 is that it has not done any sort of manipulation or tampering of marks favourable to a candidate and unfavourable to another candidate. The irregularities mentioned in the final report of the Committee may be attributed to human errors or lapses as apparent to every process which is purely bonafide mistakes and unintentional without any malpractices, thereby not affecting the chances of selection and non-selection iin the Main Examination, 2016. In addition thereto, it has been stated that the petitioners are mostly regular litigants and since they have appeared in the Main Examination, 2016 and failed therein, they have no locus standi to ask for quashing it. The Main Examination, 2016 was conducted strictly in accordance with the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 and the MPSC Conduct of Rules, 2011 and other relevant rules/ guidelines. No substantial and adverse impact on the Main Examination, 2016, is caused by the errors/ irregularities found in the report and in particular, the cut-off or the minimum qualifying marks set by the MPSC. After the incumbent Chairman and the Secretray took charge, they decided to examine all the scripts. As the errors found in the answer scripts are not so serious and there are cases pending before the Court, the MPSC has decided not to take any unilateral action. It has not been made compulsory for the Supervisors to put his signature on all the answer scripts, as the Supervosors are few and the answer scripts are many. There is no specific provision in the rules that the Supervisors are to sign all the answer scripts. The duty of the Supervisors ends just after the collection of answer sheets. There might be instances where the examiner did not put his signature which can be attributed to human errors and bonafide mistakes without any bias or malafide. The increase or decrease of marks due to certain mistakes in respect of certain candidates does not affect the evaluation of their papers. The scrutinizers are not allowed to sign in the answer scripts and their role is to find out errors in totaling, unchecked questions, transposing errors etc. and any bonafide mistake on their part may happen through oversight or else. After completion of the evaluation of answer sheets, the MPSC with the help of lecturers of different colleges and Higher Secondary Schools, scrutinized the answer sheets and checked for any errors in totaling the marks, any un-evaluated answer, any excess attempt the questions, correct or incorrect etc. Therefore, the chances of gross mistakes in the examination are very less. However, some errors both human or mechanical , irregularities or procedural lapses, might have occurred but the same cannot be the grounds of for construing as patent irregularities and adversely affecting all the candidates or otherwise the conduct of the entire Main Examination, 2016.

STAND OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS:

[9.7] An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8, 35 to 28, 40, 42, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67 to 69, 75 and 77 raising a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ peititons on the ground that since the petitioners have failed to qualify for the cut-off marks, they have no locus standi to challenge the process selection. The averments made herein are almost identical to that of ones made in the affidavit of the MPSC, the details are not reproduced herein. In addition thereto, it has been stated that the petitioner No.16 being a respondent in WP(C) No.803 of 2016, cannot accept and thereafter, challenge the selection at his sweet will. The answering respondents who are meritorious candidates, had been holding various prestigious posts prior to joining the present posts and left the earlier jobs, to join the present posts pursuant to the said selection. They have cleared the departmental examinations. There is no finding whatsoever of any irregularity or illegality of any kind with regard the answer sheets of the answering respondents except minor inconsequential aberrations in respect of the respondent Nos.37, 40 and 54. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unless there are mass irregularities or illegalities, there cannot be any justification to deny appointments or disturb the appointments of the selected candidates and therefore, they are entitled to continue in the posts held by them. An affidavit has been fled on behalf of the respondent Nos.9, 17, 19, 22-27, and 29 which is also similar to that of the MPSC. It has been stated that the irregularities or mistakes pointed out by the Committee can be clearly segregated and corrected. The result obtained after correcting the mistakes or irregularities does not change the original position of the selected and non-selected candidates. The petitioners having failed in the examination, do have locus standi to question the process of selection. The respondent No.24 has filed his affidavit pointing out the error committed by the Committee in its final report that even though he did not attempt to answer question No.4 or 4(b) of Education Paper-I, it has been alleged that the marks have been altered in respect of question No.4(b) and that the incorrect finding is required to be expunged, failing which the answering respondent shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.29, 31, 64, 68, 69 and 75 stating that the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons and therefore, they have no legal rights to be enforced to quash the examination. The result of the examination cannot be challenged by the petitioners after they having participated therein and being found to be unsuccessful. The petitioners suffer no legal injury but psychological or imaginary injury, for which there is no remedy in the court of law. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are in the nature of PIL and are not maintainable.

[9.8] In writ petition No.725 of 2017, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.44 and 46 stating that marks were never altered nor have they been tampered by anyone and there is no illegalities in their answer sheets. They are aggrieved by the report submitted by the Committee to the extent that they have been found to have given answers to questions from Section-A only without any question being chosen from Section B after having attempted the compulsory queston No.1 & 5 and no marks are deducted for having chosen excess question. It has been stated that it is nowhere mentioned in the question paper or in the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 that if the candidates do not follow the instruction in Note 2, the marks given will be deducted. If marks are to be deducted, there must be a source of law/ provision empowering the MPSC to deduct the marks. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.82 stating that in reply to her application, copies of her answer sheets were given and on perusal thereof, it is seen that there are no sign of tempering/ manipulation of marks. In respect of question No.1(a) of Education Paper-I, though she gave the correct answer for which no mark was given inside the answer sheets, 21 marks are given in the tabulation sheet of the front page. Assuming that it is a bonafide minstake, she cannot be blamed for it and cannot be made a victim thereof.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE:

[9.9] On 16-08-2017 when the matter taken for consideration, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents, directed that the appointment orders issued in favour of the private respondent would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. Several opportunities were given to the respondents for filing counter affidavits and after considering the issues involved therein, this Court felt that a Committee would be required to be constituted, for which the learned counsel appearing for the parties were given opportunity to furnish their suggestions. On 20-11-2107, this Court after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, constituted a Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") consisting of two persons - one, a retied District & Sessions Judge and two, a retired IAS, to examine the issues mentioned therein and submit a report thereof within forty-five days therefrom. However, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a petition for special levae to appeal being SLP (C) No.37281-82 of 2017 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11-01-2018 directed that the scope of enquiry would be confined to the answer sheets of the candidates who approached the High Court. Accordingly, this Court passed an order dated 19-01-2018 modifying its earlier order dated 20-11-2017. The Committee submitted its report dated 12-03-2018, a copy of which was forwarded to the Hon'ble

Supreme Court pursuant to its order and after the perusal of the report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 12-04-2018 permitted the Committee to look into all the answer sheets of all the candidates. Thereater, the Committee, after holding the enquiry, submitted its final report. The findings of the Committee are as under:

"Issue No.(a): Qut of 8163 answer scripts of all subjects, the Examiner does not put his/ her signature on

i) 75 answer scripts of General English Paper-I,

ii) 1 answer script of Education Paper-1,

iii) 1 answer script of Education Paper-II,

iv) 4 answer scripts of Public Administration Paper-I,

v) 2 answer scripts of Public Administration Paper-l1,

vi) 8 answer scripts of History Paper-lI,

vii) 2 answer scripts of Computer Science Paper-II

As such 93 anşwer scripts altogether are not signed by the examiner.

Issue No (b): The Supervisor does not put his/ her signature on

i) 1063 answer seripts of General English Paper-I,

ii) 1063 answer scripts of General English Paper-Il,

iii) 881 answer scripts of Education Paper-l,

iv) 873 answer scripts of Education Paper-|l,

v) 499 answer scripts of Public Administration Paper-I,

vi) 496 answer scripts of Public Administration Paper-II,

vii) 371 answer scripts of General Studies Paper-I

viii) 71 answer seripts Political Science Paper-I,

ix) 71 answer scripts of Political Science Paper-II,

x) 178 answer scripts of Geography Paper-1,

xi) 178 answer scripts of Geography Papar-II,

xii) 5 answer scripts Philosophy Paper-I,

xiii) 5 answer scripts Philosophy Paper-II,

xiv) 5 answer scripts Psychology Paper-I,

xv) 5 answer scripts of Psychology Paper-II.

As such 5764 answer scripts altogether are not signed by the Supervisor.

Issue No.(C): 3 answers of Education Paper-lI and Public Admipistration Paper-II are not awarded marks. 12 answers of General English Paper-l, Education Paper-lI and Public Administration Paper-II are not recorded for awarding marks on the answers but marks are recoded on the table for totalling. All 4 answer scripts of Geology Paper-I are not awarded marks on all answers but marks are recorded on table for totalling.

Issue No.(d): Alteration of marks without initial of the Examiner is made on

i) 8 answers scripts of General English Paper-I,

ii) 1 answer script of General English Paper-I1,

iii) 12 answer scripts of Education Paper-I,

iv) 24 answer scripts of Education Paper-Il

v) 5 answer scripts of Public Administration Paper-I,

vi) 13 answer scripts of Public Administration Paper-ll,

vii) 313 answer scripts of General Studies Paper-l,

viii) 78 answer scripts of General Studies Paper-lI,

ix) 1 answer script of Phychology Paper-II

x) 1 answer script on Commerce & Accountancy Paper-I

xi) 1 answer script in Hindi Paper I

xii) 1 answer script of Electrical Engineering Paper-II

xiii) 1 answer script of Mathematics Paper-I

xiv) 1 answer script of Mathematics Paper-lI

xv) I answer script of Anthropology Paper-I

xvi) 1 answer script of Economics Paper-II

xvii) 3 answer seripts of Management Paper-I

xviii) 4 answer scripts of Management Paper-II

xix) 14 answer script of Zoology Paper-I

xx) 9 answer script of Zoology Paper-II

xxi) 12 answer scripts of Manipuri Paper-I

xxii) 5 answer scripts of Manipuri Paper-1l

xxiii) 2 answer scripts of Geography Paper-I

xxiv) 3 answer scripts of Geography Paper-Il

xxv) 6 answer scripts of Botany Paper-I

xxvi) 3 answer scripts of Botany Paper-II

As such, marks of 523 answer scripts altogether altered without initial of Examiner.

Issue No.(e): As pointed out above, as per notification of the Manipur Public Service Commission, the last subject to be held on 21-09-2016 was Geography and as there was holiday on 05-09-2016 on account of Teachers' Day, General Studies subject fell on that day was postponed to 23-09-2016 as last subject ot the examination. It is informed that the answer seripts of General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II were started to hand over to the Examiners from 24-09-2016 for evaluation. No record of handing over and taking over is produced.

Issue No. (f) & (g): lt will be convenient to report these two issues jointiy. It is informed that the answer scripts of General Studies were handed over to the Examiners bundlewise of 50 (fifty) answer seripts for evaluation starting from 24-09-2016 and after receiving back the previous bunles after evaluation, next bundles weré again handed over for further evaluation as the evaluation was done in the building of the Commission. The process was ended on 01-10-2016. Scrutiny was done only for totalling errors, uncheck answers and posting mistakes. Scrutiny was done simultaneously with the evaluation of the answer scripts just after receiving back from the Examiners. There is no separate date for commencing evaluation of answer scripts by the Examiners and for scrutiny of it and completion of the process. There is no document for handing over and taking over in support oI such transactions. As per brief note of the Commission, General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II were examined by 5 experts commencing from 24-09-2016 and completed on 01-10-2016 taking 8 days. The scrutiny was completed on 03-10-2016. However, no signature of any expert scrutinizing the answer scripts is found in the relevant records.

Issue No. (h): It is informed that as all the material particulars were already fitted with the computer, no longer time was taken in de-coding of the answer scripts. It was done and completed on 04-11-2016.

Summing up ot/all the material facts pointed out above, there are some irregularities in the process of the examination such as signing of Examiners, Supervisors, invigilators, awarding and alteration of marks and incorrect totalling of marks, etc. The Chairman, the Secretary and staff of the Manipur Public Service Commission are co-operative in conducting and completing the inquiry and is highly appreciative of their valuable assistance."

WP(C) No. 313 of 2018

[10.1] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Main Examination 2016 as there has been patent irregularities in the evaluation and tabulation of the answer scripts of the petitioner; to direct the Respondents to re-evaluate and re-tabulate the answer scripts i.e. Education Paper-1l and Public Administration paper-Il and determine or ascertain the petitioner's place and position of merit list of the Main Examination, 2016 and afford all consequentional benefits including the recommendation for appointment according to merit list/ position within a stipulated period and to direct the MPSC to hold the Main Examination 2016, afresh which was notified as per Notification dated 7.4.2016 for the ends of justice.

[10.2] The petitioner is one of the aspirants for the 82 Civil posts advertised vide MPSC advertisement dated 07.04.2016 and having qualified in all respects, the petitioner appeared in the Preliminary Examination, 2016. The petitioner was found eligible and qualified candidate for appearing in the Main Examination, 2016 conducted by the MPSC from 04.09.2016 to 23.09.2016.

[10.3] An advertisement dated 29.12.2015 was notified by the MPSC inviting applications to be submitted only through online for 82 (eighty two) civil posts of the Manipur Civil Services Grade-Il (13 in number), the Manipur Police Service Grade-II (16 in number) the Sub-Deputy Collector (48 in number), the Manipur Secretariat Service/ Section Officer (4 in number) and the Election Officer (1 in number). Candidates will be selected on the basis of the Preliminary Examination 2015 to be conducted under the Competitive Examination Rules 2010. The advertisement provides that the last date of submission of application forms was 30.04.2016  and  the  Preliminary  Examination  2015  would  be  held  on 15.05.2016. The last date of submission of application forms was extended by three consecutive Notifications dated 29.04.2016, 08.05.2016 and 11.05.2016 allowing the submission of application forms upto the midnight of 12.5.2016.

[10.4] The MPSC again issued another Notification dated 16.02.2016 referring to its earlier advertisement dated 29.12.2015 which cancelled the the Preliminary Examination, 2015 to be held on 28.02.2016. Thereafter the MPSC issued a fresh advertisement dated 07.04.2016 inviting applications to be submitted only through online for the said 82 posts. The candidates will be selected on the basis of the Preliminary Examination 2016 to be conducted under the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010. The advertisement provides that the last date for submission of application form was 30.04.2016 and the Preliminary Examination 2015 would be held on 15.05.2016. The last date for submission of application form was further extended by three consecutive Notifications dated 29.04.2016, 08.05.2016 and 11.05.2016 allowing the submission of application forms upto the midnight of 12.05.2016.

[10.5] The Preliminary Examination 2016, was held as per schedule on 15.05.2016. However, the MPSC issued a Notification dated 03.06.2016 cancelling the Preliminary Examination 2016 held on 15.05.2016 because of the contradictory instructions given in para 9 of the test booklet of the said Examination. The Notification further stated that the Preliminary Examination 2016 would be held afresh on 03.07.2016.

[10.6] On the strength of the Roll No.10151 allotted to him, he appeared the Preliminary Examination 2016 on 03.07.2016 and the result thereof was announced vide Notification dated 08-07-2016 wherein the petitioner was found to be qualified for appearing in the Main Examination, 2016. Altogether 1130 candidates were declared successful in the Preliminary Examination 2016 and were declared eligible for the Main Examination, 2016. The date of commencing the Main Examination 2016 was fixed as 04.09.2016. The petitioner was issued Admit card for appearing in the Main Examination 2016 which was conducted from 04.09.2016 to 23.09.2016. The result of the successful candidates were announced on 04.10.2016 vide Notification dated 04.10.2016. However, the petitioner's name was not included in the select list of selected 162 candidates for personality test.

[10.7] The petitioner having apprehension about the commission of irregularities by MPSC in the allocation/ award of marks in the answer papers of the Main Examination, 2016, requested the MPSC through RTI for obtaining his answer scripts/ papers.. The SPIO of the MPSC informed the petitioner to deposit Rs.178/- for obtaining answer scripts of four subjects vide letter dated 26.10.2017. The petitioner after obtaining the answer scripts and going through the marking, evaluation & tabulation of Marks with regards to his answer scripts, found two glaring irregularities in his answer scripts and narrated the same as hereunder:-

(i) In the answer script of the Education (Paper-1l) instead of awarding 190 marks, the petitioner was awarded 104 marks only. The marks for question No.1 and 5 ie. 38 and 48 totalling 86 marks are not included or added in the calculation of his total marks.

(ii) The answer script of the subject, Public Administration (Paper-II) does not have the signature of examiner, indicating that the evaluation & tabulation of checking and marking were not done properly and correctly.

The petitioner after ascertaining the gross irregularities of serious nature committed by MPSC, submitted a representation dated 08.12.2017 to the Chairman MPSC requesting for revaluation and tabulation of his disputed answer scripts. However, the MPSC failed to respond or dispose of the said representation till date.

[10.8] The Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the MPSC, filed the writ petition on the following

GROUNDS:

(a) The Respondents had committed serious irregularities in marking, revaluation & tabulation of the Petitioner's two answer scripts i.e. Education (Paper-II) and Public Administration (Paper-II).

(b) The Respondents are trying to suppress and conceal the irregularities committed by them without considering the representation dated 08.12.2017.

(c) The Respondents ought to have re-evaluated and tabulated the aforementioned answer scripts and determine his merit list.

(d) The whole examination conducted for selection of 82 posts is now tainted with gross and glaring irregularities and deserves interference by the Hon'ble High Court.

(e) The Respondents had acted arbitrarily, dishonestly, without transparency and colorable exercise of power causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.

(f) The sanctity of the MPSC regarding competitive Examination for selection of 82 posts is now highly illegal.

(g) The Respondents had violated Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

QUESTION OF LAW:

[11] The main issue that calls for consideration by this Coourt is as to whether, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the cummulative effect of the irregularities and the lapses on the part of the MPSC, the Main Examination, 2016 can be said to be an examination conducted by the MPSC in accordance with law?

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL:

[12.1] It has been submitted by Smt. G. Pushpa, learned Advocate that the Main Examination, 2016 was not conducted by the MPSC in accordance with the rules/ regulations applicable to it for the reason that no examination rules or for that matter, the evaluation rules as contemplated in the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011, have not been framed till then. There is no proper explanation as to why the process of selection was made to be completed at a great speed and the result thereof was declared on 04-10-2016, after the evaluation of the last subject was completed only on 03-10-2016. The irregularities found in the report submitted by the Committee make it very clear that the Main Examination, 2016 was conducted by the MPSC in a casual manner with the result that a room was created for manipulation and that the credibility of the MPSC stood shakened. The learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions solely relying on the reports submitted by the Commission which are not based on materials and are full of contradictions. In support of his contention, she has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1994) 4 SCC 165; (2001) 2 SCC 386; AIR 2002 SC 1230; (2002) 3 SCC 146; (3003) 2 SCC 673; (2010) 11 SCC 684; (2014) 6 SCC 644; (2015) 6 SCC 573; (2017) 13 SCC 621; (2018) 6 SCC 614 and the order dated 04-04-2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.3543-555 of 2018, Avinash Vs State of Karnataka. Having endorsed and adopted the submissions of Smt. G. Pushpa, Shri R.K.Deepak, learned Advocate contended that from the chart produced by the MPSC as regards the time taken by the evaluators, it is seen that the judicious evaluation of all the answer sheets would not have been possible. In spite of the clear written instruction namely 'instructions to candidates' that no extra sheets shall be be given to the candidates, extra sheets were given on oral instruction as contended by the MPSC and that too, in some examination centres only which is abosoluely discriminatory. The provisions contained in the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 and in particular, the Rule 26 were not followed by the MPSC. The irregularities  are many and cannot be said to be some which can be attributed to human error and therefore, the question of segregation will not arise at all. From the irregularities which have been detected and found in the report of the Committee, it is evident that the secrecy or confidentiality was not maintained by the MPSC while conducting the Main Examination, 2016. While dismissing the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge relying upon the reports submitted by the Commission, it has failed to appreciate the irregularities found in it and in other words, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the dissenting views expressed by the members of the Commission. Reliance has been placed by him in the decisions rendered in (2007) 3 SCC 720 and (2013) 12 SCC 489. Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.313 of 2018 made his submission reiterating the grounds taken therein. Shri A. Mohendro, learned Advocate has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider all the issues raised in the writ petitions, even though the High Court has enough power that can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constituion of India. He has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1980 AP 132; AIR 1983 SC 803; (1985) 4 SCC 417; (2006) 8 SCC 33 and (2010) 13 SCC 586. In line with his argument, Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, Advocate has submitted that since there had been large scale manipulations while conducting the Main Examination, 2016, it should be cancelled and that this Court has full  followed by the examiners. The marks secured by the candidates have not yet been uploaded so far, although it is a must. The question of segregation will not arise, since the irregularities being many and alarming, should go to the root of the case. In view of the present circumstances prevailing in Manipur like law & order problems, allegations of corruption in public employment, manipulations in such examination etc., this Court shall protect the sanctity of the MPSC. He has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in (1996) 5 SCC 365; (2002) 3 SCC 146; (2003) 2 SCC 673; (2014) 6 SCC 644; (2014) 8 SCC 369 and (2017) 4 SCC 1. Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate appearing for a proforma respondent in WA No.19 of 2017 has adopted the arguments of the other counsel.

[12.2] While admitting fairly the irregularities found in the report of the Committee, Shri Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the selected candidates has vehemently submitted that the said irregularities have not resulted in undue favour to the selected candidates who were appointed pursuant to the result being declared by the MPSC and after having completed their requisite training, they had been confirmed in their services. There is no any allegation of manipulation or tampering of marks which can be attributed to the selected candidates including the respondents for whom he was appearing. Relying heavily upon the averments made in the counter affidavit of the MPSC, it has been submitted by him that no adverse impact has been caused by the said irregularities and even after the rectification of their being done on the basis of the report, all the petitioners will secure less marks than the qualifying marks fixed by the MPSC. Even if the report of the Committee is given effect to, only two candidates from amongst the selected candidates, are likey to be affected and therefore, there is no reason as to why the remaining unaffected candidates shall be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. By applying the principle of segregation of tainted one from untainted for which an attempt shall be made first and the unaffected candidates shall be allowed to continue in their respective services. Except those irregularities as detected in the report of the Committee, there is no any finding given in the report as regards the fraud or manipulation, unfair means, favouritism etc. being indulged or committed by the selected candidates. Non-signing of many answer sheets by the Supervisors is not fatal for the reason that it is not mandatory because the rule is silent on that. As on date, there are vacancies available for which an advertisement was issued on 08-01-2019, the two candidates who are likely to be affected in the event of the report of the Committee being given effect to, can be accommodated against the said posts. Considering the over all circumstances including the irregularities, it is not a case where the entire process of selection ought to be cancelled by the MPSC. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been relied upon by him, are the ones rendered in (2002) 9 SCC 765; (2014) 6 SCC 644 and (2018) 15 SCC 796. Shri B.R. Sharma, learned Advocate has submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable, as the petitioners do not fall within the meaning of 'aggrieved person'. There is no any whisper in the writ petitions filed by them about it. The irregularities as detected in the report of the Committee, do not change the equation and in other words, they do not affect the merit list at all. There is no any allegation against the selected candidates for having committed any fraud or any illegal activities. The petitioners cannot question the process of selection, after they having participated and failed in it. He has relied upon the decisions rendered in (1995) 3 SCC 486; (1998) 7 SCC 273; (2007) 1 SCC 257; (2008) 5 SCC 217; (2013) 4 SCC 465; (2014) 6 SCC 644 and (2015) 7 SCC 779. Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the MPSC has made his sincere effort to defend the MPSC for which he has relied upon the averments in their affidavit. The irregularities as found in the report of the Committee, are not denied but it has been submitted by him that they may be attributed to human errors which can be rectified because they are not illegal. Even if the report of the Committee is given effect to or in other words, if the errors are rectified or removed in terms of the said report, the petitioners will not come within the select list and it will not materially affect the result at all. There is no any provision in the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 mandating that the Supervisors shall sign all the answer sheets. Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Advocate has submitted that no plea has been taken in the writ pettions as regards the non-appointment of the Controller of Examination and its effect. There is nothing wrong in a case where no mark is given in the answer sheet but has been given in the tabulation because the answer is there in the answer sheet. The violation of the instructions as contained in Note No.2 of the 'Instruction to Candidates' cannot be branded as tainted one. There is no provision in the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 that if one violates the instruction as contained in Note No.2 of the 'Instruction to Candidates', the mark shall be deducted for it. As regards the maintainability of the writ petitions, he has submitted that he would adopt the argument of Shri B. R. Sharma. Reliance has been placed in (2011) 14 SCC 243; (2012) 12 SCC 63 and (2018) 14 SCC 129. Shri A. Bimol, Senior Advocate has submitted that even though there are cases of certain answer sheets not being signed by the Supervisors or by the Invigilators or the Examiners, none of the candidates has come forward to contend that the answer sheets are not their answer sheets. The irregularities as detected in the report of the Committee, are purely human errors and there is no any problem when no mark is given in the answer sheet, if it has been given in the tabulation. No specific allegation has been made in the writ petitions which can be attributed to the selected candidates. A balancing approach is to be adopted by this Court while deciding the issue as to whether the entire process of selection shall be cancelled or not. The decisions relied upon by him are the ones in (2003) 7 SCC 285; (2013) 11 SCC 309 and (2017) 4 SCC 359. The argument of Shri E. Premjit is similar to that of Shri Vijay Hansaria and therefore, the details thereof are not referred to herein for the sake of brevirt. It has been submitted by him that the order dated 21-12-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by anyone. There is no reason as to why the selected candidates shall suffer, when they are not at fault. The petitioners being not aggrieved persons, have no right to question the process of selection. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 2 SCC 673, has been relied upon by him. Adopting the arguments of the other counsel on the larger issues, Shri Th. Momo, learned Advocate has submitted that even though his client did not attempt question No.4 (b), the Committte gave its report contrary thereto and therefore, the same shall be expunged from the report. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 14 SCC 523.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

[13.1] Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides for equal opportunity in matters relating to public employment and it being a fundamental right, any action taken by the Government or its instrumentalists in violation thereof will be rendered illegal. In Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela & ors., (2006) 2 SCC 482, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"12. Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words "employment or appointment" cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation, etc. The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit  of candidates  who have applied in   response  to   the advertisement  made.  A  regular appointment to a post under the State or  Union  cannot be made without   issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution."

What is a constitutional mandate as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution has been vividly and candidly explained by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Uma Devi & ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"34. In A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies a three-Judge Bench made a survey of the authorities and held that when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularised by the State. The State could not invoke its power under Article 162 of the Constitution to regularise such appointments. This Court also held that regularisation is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the rules framed thereunder. Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature. It was also held that the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularisation."

From the above decisions, it is absolutely clear that the law relating to public employment as mandated in Article 16 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. What the constitutional scheme envisages, in short, is that while making public employment, the procedure established by law in that behalf ought to be followed and in other words, the procedure ought to include many things and in particular, the framing of recruitment rules under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the creation of posts, the issuance of advertisement inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates, the selection to be made by a Selection Board etc.

[13.2] It is well settled that every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and basis to the rule of law, the system which governs us. The decision making process should be transparent, fair and open. The reasonableness and fairness is the heart and soul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law. Article 14 strikes at the root of arbitrariness. The most accepted methodology of governmental working ought always to be fariness and in the event of its absence, the law Courts would be within their jurisdiction to deal with the matter appropriately. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including that of the Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & ors., (1978) 1 SCC 248 that the State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably.

PROVISIONS OF RELEVANT RULES:

[14.1] In order to regulate the conduct of examination, the State Government, in exercise of its power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed a rule called "Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010". The expression "Combined Competitive Examination" has been defined in the said rule as the examination conducted by the MPSC for recruitment to the services/ posts as mentioned in Schedule-I which includes both the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination. The issue involved herein concerns with the validity and correctness of the conduct of the Main Examination, 2016. The MPSC, after the Main Examination, 2016 being held, shall prepare a merit list of candidates and forward the same to the State Government for appointment to various services/ posts. The MPSC shall conduct the said examination in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur. The eligibility criteria, the number of vacancies, the payment of fees, the reservations of seats, the physical requirement and functional classification etc., are prescribed in Schedule-II of the said Rules, 2010. By way of an amendment as notified on 04-03-2016, it has been provided that a candidate must be able to speak Manipuri or any of the Tribal Dialects; a candidate must be a permanent resident of Manipur subject to the proviso mentioned therein and that the evaluation of papers namely the 'Essay', 'General English' and 'optional subjects' and the qualifying 'English' would be done simultaneously.

[14.2] In exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 320 of the Constitution, the MPSC framed a rule called "the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure & Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011") consisting of many parts. Part-IV thereof provides for the procedure in regard to recommendations to be made by MPSC in respect of the appointment to public service. Rule 26 A provides the procedure for conducting examinations and interview/ viva voce. Sub-rule 8 and 9 of Rule 26A reads as under:

"8. As soon as the examination is over, roll numbers of candidates will be removed and code numbers given and kept in the strong room

Codification shall be done in the presence of the Controller of Examination who shall be fully responsible for its safe custody and secrecy. It means Codification and Code Number will be kept in the safe custody of the Controller of Examination. 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 maintain integrity and justice in conducting the Competitive Examinations. The Strong Room shall be under the dual control of the Chairman and Secretary."

[14.3] Rule 26 B which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues involved herein, provides the programme for the examination. The relevant sub-rules (v) to (xxi) read as under:

"(v) All arrangement for such examination shall be made by the Controller of Examinations in consultation with the Secretary and in accordance with such directions as may be issued by the Commission in that behalf.

(vi) The centre Supervisors shall prepare a list of the persons suitable to be appointed as invigilators and they shall be responsible for proper arrangements of invigilation to ensure fair conduct of examination at the centre.

(vii) Guidelines for centre Supervisors and the invigilators shall be prepared and sent by the Controller of Examinations with prior approval of the Secretary.

(viii) The Commission may formulate guide-lines for appointment of invigilators at centres of examination.

(ix) If an invigilator is found wanting in his duties as such, the matter shall be reported to the Controller of Examinations, who shall take steps for exclusion of such invigilator's name from the Iist and shall take such other actions as he deems fit.

(х) As soon as the examination with regard to a paper is over and the answer-book has been received, the Controller of Examination shall submit a report to the Commission through the Secretary indicating the number of candidates who have appeared in the examination. The term answer-book shall mean answer-sheets also in case of preliminary examination or screening test.

(xi) The Controller of Examination shall ensure that Fake Roll numbers are allotted to each candidate in each paper before the answer-books are provided or dispatched to the examiners for assessment.

(xii) 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.

(xiii) Ordinarily six weeks time shall be allowed for return of assessed answer-books by the examiner, but the Controller of Examination may in special circumstances and on request made by the examiner, extend the time by 15 days.

(xiv) If an examiner fails to return the answer-books within the time allowed or the extended time, as the case may be, the matter shall be placed immediately before the Chairman for orders.

(xv) If an examiner is unable to assess the answer-book for any reason within the time allowed by the Controller of Examination, he shall immediately return them. The Chairman shall in such a case appoint another examiner from amongst the panel of examiners.

(xvi) if an examiner fails to comply with the instruction/ order of the Commission, or fails to cooperate with the Commission or other examiners, or found negligent in the discharge of his duties as an examiner, or of misconduct of anything undesirable on his part has come to notice, the fact shall be brought to the notice of the Commission, and the Commission may strike off the name of such examiner from the panel of examiners for a specified period or permanently, and may proceed against him otherwise also as the situation requires to do,

(xvii) The Controller of Examination shall submit a report to the Chairman indicating the position regarding the return of answer-books immediately after the expiry of the prescribed time-limit.

(xyiii) 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 ommission.

(xix) The Examination-Committee or the Commission may make random checking of the tabulation.

(xx) Where the tabulation is complete and thoroughly checked by the office and the Commission as provided for in the above Rules, the Controller of Examination shall submit the result to the Secretary, who shall submit the same to the Commission in the form and the manner to be prescribed by the Commission to take orders as to how many candidates, are considered fit for being admitted to personality test/ interview.

(xxi) The proper evaluation of answer books/ sheets, correct tabulation of marks and correct restoration of original roll numbers of the candidates shall be done under the overall supervision of the Controller of Examinations."

[15] What does the word 'Examination" mean? It is not defined either in the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 or in the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011. But the expression "Combined Competitive Examination" is defined in the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 as the examination to be conducted by the MPSC. Since the word "Examination" is not defined in the said rules, it is to be understood with reference to the meaning thereof given in the dictionary. In Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionar, the word "examination" means a formal written, spoken or practical test, especially at School or College, to see how much you know about a subject, or what you can do. In other words, the examination means a test of a student's knowledge in prescribed subjects. An examination creates a sort of care in students to prepare their studies sincerely. The examinations may be of various types such as oral, written and practical. The examination ascertains the proficiency of a student upto a certain limit. It induces students to prepare well in the subjects given to them. In the present case, the examination involved is not an academic examination where the students, if they secure the minimum pass marks, are declared to have passed the examination and are eligble for promotion to the next higher class but a competitive examination where the candidates are to be selected depending upon the number of vacancies in the posts irrespective of the high marks secured by them. The Rule 3 of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010 provides that the examination for selection of candidates for recruitment to various services shall be conducted by the MPSC. In other words, no any other authority other than the MPSC can conduct the said examination. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the MPSC. In Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Public Service Commission occupies a pivotal place of importance in the State and the integrity and efficiency of the administrative apparatus depends considerably on the quality of the selection made by it. It is absolutely essential that the best and finest talent should be drawn in the administration and administrative service must be composed of men who are honest, upright and independent and who are not swayed by the political winds blowing in the country. The selection of candidates for the administrative services must therefore be made strictly on merits, keeping in view various factors which go to make a strong, efficient and people oriented administrator.

LAPSES & IRREGULARITIES:

[16.1] The lapses as alleged against the MPSC and the irregularities as detected in the reports of the Commission as well as the Committee, are relevant and important for the reason that the issues involved herein= are to be decided by this Court on their basis. The lapses on the part of the MPSC as regards the non-implementation of the provisions of the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 as alleged by the petitioners are;

(a) Non-appointment of a Controller of Examination as contemplated in the rules, although it is a must and is indispensable.

(b) No procedure laid down by the MPSC for the evaluation and tabulation of answer books or sheets as the case may be.

[16.2] The irregularities as detected by the Commission as well as the Committee appointed by this Court are as under:

(a) Out of 8163 answer sheets, the Examiners do not put their signatures in respect of seven papers/ subjects;

(b) Out of 8163 answer sheets, the Supervisors do not put their signature in respect of fifteen papers/ subjects;

(c) Marks are not awarded in respect of three answers of Education Paper-II and Public Administration Paper-II;

(d) Twelve answers of General English Paper-I, Education Paper-II and Public Adminstration Paper-II are not recorded for awarding marks on the answers but marks are recorded on the table for totaling;

(e) All four answer scripts of Geology Paper-I are not awarded marks on all the answers but marks are recorded on the table for totaling;

(f) Alteration of marks, without initials of the examiners, is made in 523 answer scripts in respect of 24 papers/ subjects;

(g) As per the information furnished by the MPSC, the evaluation of the answer scripts of General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II, the examination of which was held on 23-09-2016, commenced on 24-09-2016 but there is no record about the handing over and taking over of the answer scripts;

(h) The Moderation or scalling the marks was not adopted by the MPSC;

[16.3] In addition to the lapses and irregularities mentioned above, there are allegations made by the petitioners based on the documents which can be summarized as under:

(a) The Notification dated 04-03-2016 issued by the DP, Government of Manipur was uploaded in the website of the MPSC only on 04-09-2016 whereby the marks fixed by the MPSC in the Main Examination, 2016 for screeing of candidates in General English was 40%, while that of the UPSC is only 25% is contrary to the decision of this Court rendered in H. Bobby Sharma Vs. MPSC, WP(C) No.150 of 2013 and moreover, there was no categorization in respect of the candidates belonging to General, OBC, ST, SC and physically challenged candidates etc;

(b) The result of the Main Examination, 2016 was declared in ten days from the date on which the examination of the last subject was held, although about two months' time had been taken by the MPSC in respect of the Competitive Examination, 2013 and 2014.

(c) As per the instructions printed on the answer scripts, it has been provided that no extra sheets will be provided at any circumstance but in some centers, candidates were allowed to take extra sheets;

(d) The Moderation was not adopted by the MPSC which is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(e) The report given by the Commission to the effect that the only expert who was employed for evaluation of Essay Paper, had taken 300-400 answer booklets to his home town for evaluation;

(f) The Secretary, MPSC went out of station from 15-09-2016 to 24-09-2016 taking answer sheets.

(g) As per the report submitted by Shri N. Brajakanta Singh, a member of the Commission, even though he had a good enough of extra qualifications, did not evaluate the answer scripts with utmost diligence.

DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL:

[17] In Krishan Yadav & anr. Vs. State of Haryana & ors., (1994) 4 SCC 165, the validty of selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Subordinate Selection Board was challenged on the ground that it was arbitrary. In view of the allegations made therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State of Haryana to refer the matter to the CBI for investigation. On the basis of the report submitted by the CBI, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal directing for fresh selection. The relevant para 19 and 20 read as under:

"19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.

In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary.

It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors."

In Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & ors. Vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & ors., (1996) 5 SCC 365 wherein the orders of the CAT, Cuttak Bench disclose the alarming state of affairs regarding lack of integrity and sincerity in the selection process, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of malpractices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is: whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them? It is true, as contended by Mr Santosh Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual if his selection is not found correct in accordance with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a case like mass malpractice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges: whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to be heard? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment. The procedures adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

In Union of India & ors. Vs. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 wherein the Railway Recruitment Board issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist.. The respondent was selected and appointed to one of the said posts. About three years later, it was found that the candidates had not been subjected to typewriting test. It appears that the matter was referred to the CBI for investigation and on the basis of its report, the Board decided to cancel the entire panel and the services of all appointed candidates were terminated. The CAT set aside the termination order for violation of principles of natural justice which was upheld by the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance."

In Joginder Singh & ors. Vs. Roshan Lal & ors., (2002) 9 SCC 765 wherein the High Court quashed the select of learner bookbinder which had been conducted by a duly appointed Selection Committee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

On the facts on record we see no justification for the High Court to have come to this conclusion. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not supposed to act as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the Departmental Selection Committee. If the Committee has been properly constituted, as in this case, and the post is advertised and a selection process known to law which is fair to all, is followed, then the High Court could have no jurisdiction to go into a question whether the Departmental Selection Committee conducted the test properly or not when there is no allegation of mala fides or bias against any member of the Committee. Merely because there were a large number of candidates who appeared on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was a farce and fair chance was not given. Normally, experienced persons are appointed as members of the Selection Committee and how much time should be spent with a candidate would vary from person to person. Merely because only two days were spent in conducting the interviews for the selection of Class IV posts cannot lead to the conclusion that the process of selection was not proper. In Onkar Lal Bajaj & ors. Vs. Union of India & anr., (2003) 2 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"27. Article 14 guarantees to everyone equality before law. Unequals cannot be clubbed. The proposition is well settled and does not require reference to any precedent though many decisions were cited. Likewise, an arbitrary exercise of executive power deserves to be quashed, is a proposition which again does not require support of any precedent. It is equally well settled that an order passed without application of mind deserves to be annulled being an arbitrary exercise of power. At the same time, we have no difficulty in accepting the proposition urged on behalf of the Government that if two views are possible and the Government takes one of it, it would not be amenable to judicial review on the ground that the other view, according to the court, is a better view."

In Sanjay Singh & anr. Vs. UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad & ors., (2007) 3 SCC 720, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Moderation is inherent in the evaluation of answer scripts in any large scale examination, where there are more than one examiner. The aforesaid decision was considered and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejinder Singh alias Kaka & ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ors, (2013) 12 SCC 503.

In Joginder Pal & ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ors., (2014) 6 SCC 644, some appointments were made in Executive Class-I between 1998-2001 by way of direct recruitment as well as by nomination as provided in the rules. Smelling rat in the said appointments, the result sheets of the nominated candidates and answer sheets of PCS Executive Branch and Allied Service Branch were seized and on going through the, the Vigilance Bureau of the State informed the Chief Secretary that most of the examinations were tainted and accordingly, the services of all the officers in the category of Nominated Executive Officers were terminated, which came to be challenged in the High Court which dismissed the writ petitions thereby confirming the action of the State Government. While setting aside judgment of the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"10. From the reading of the judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon case, one can discern the following principles:

10.1. An appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be void. It would be a nullity. Since the services of the appellants were terminated not in terms of the Rules but in view of the commission of illegality in the selection process involved, the applicability of the relevant provisions of the statutes as also the effect of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution need not be considered.

10.2. Before a finding that an appointment has been made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be arrived at, the appointing authority must take into consideration the foundational facts. Only when such foundational facts are established, can the legal principles be applied. When the services of employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abetted corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in public interest their services should be terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer.

10.3. A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. Only in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable that the tainted cases can be separated from the non-tainted cases could en masse orders of termination be issued. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates.

10.4. Cases which may arise where the selection process is perceived to be tainted may be categorised in the following manner:

(i) Cases where the "event" has been investigated.

(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded.

(iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointment was not made.

(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible and the appointments were found to be contrary to law or rules.

If the services of appointees who had put in a few years of service were terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands of the State was imperative viz. (1) to establish satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) to determine the question that the illegalities committed went to the root of the matter, which vitiated the entire selection process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner; (3) whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority had been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt.

10.5. Once the necessary factual findings as enumerated above are arrived at, or it is found impossible or highly improbable to separate tainted from untainted cases, all appointments traceable to the officers concerned could be cancelled. But admittedly, in the present case, although there had been serious imputations against Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu being at the helm of the affairs of the State Public Service Commission, all decisions made by the Commission during his tenure are yet to be set aside.

12.1. If services of appointees who had put in a few years of service are to be terminated, compliance with following principles by State is imperative:

(1) sufficient materials are to be collected, to be gathered by thorough investigation in fair and transparent manner;

(2) illegalities committed must go to the root of the matter, vitiating entire selection process; and

(3) the appointees/officers in majority must be found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself must be found to be corrupt."

In Hitendra Singh & ors. Vs. Dr. Punjab Rao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth & ors., (2014) 8 SCC 369 wherein the Vidyapeeth invited applications for appointment against 24 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Research Assistants and 37 Junior Researsh assistants. After the process of selection was over, appointments were made but several complaints appear to have been made against the selection process and the resultant appointments, some of which were in the form of writ petitions. Mr. Justice H.W. Dhabe, a former Judge of the High Court of Bombay was appointed to examine the papers relating to selection and appointment. On the basis of his report, the services of the appointees were terminated. Since the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, appeals have been preferred and while dismissing the appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"35. Having said that we must say that the main contention which the petitioners have urged in support of their continuance in service is that they have become overage for any government employment at this stage. If ousted from service the petitioners will have no place to go nor even an opportunity to compete for the vacancies against which they were appointed. That is an aspect which can be and ought to be considered especially when there is no allegation leave alone evidence about any bribery having taken place in the issue of appointment orders by the officials concerned. Even so, continuance of the petitioners in service would not, in our opinion, be justified having regard to the background in which the selection and appointments were made and eventually set aside by the University. All that the long years of service rendered with the University may secure for the petitioners is a direction to the effect that in any future selection against the vacancies caused by their ouster and other vacancies that may be available for the next selection the petitioners shall also be considered in relaxation of the upper age-limit prescribed for them. Such of the petitioners who could try their luck in the next selection and who succeed in the same will also have the benefit of continuity of service."

In Tanvi Sarwal Bs. Central Board of Secondary Education & ors., (2015) 6 SCC 573, the subject in issue relates to the challenge to the All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2015. After examination having been held, news reports started surfacing in many dailies ragarding transmission of answer keys during the examination. Several writ petitions came to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of Inida. The matter was investigated by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak and after having considered contentions of the counsel and the report of the police, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court allowed the writ petition directing the Board to hold the examination. The relevant paras 19 and 20 read as under:

"19. Segregation only of the already 44 identified candidates stated to be the beneficiaries of the unprincipled manoeuvre by withholding their results for the time being, in our comprehension cannot be the solution to the problem that confronts all of us. Not only thereby, if the process is allowed to advance, it would be pushed to a vortex of litigation pertaining thereto in the foreseeable future, the prospects of the candidates would not only remain uncertain and tentative, they would also remain plagued with the prolonged anguish and anxiety if involved in the ordeal of court cases. Acting on this option, would in our estimate, amount to driving knowingly the students, who are not at fault, to an uncertain future with their academic career in jeopardy on many counts. Further, there would also be a lurking possibility of unidentified beneficiary candidates stealing a march over them, on the basis of the advantages availed by them through the underhand dealings as revealed. Having regard to the fact, that the course involved with time would yield the future generations of doctors of the country, who would be in charge of public health, their inherent merit to qualify for taking the course can by no means be compromised.

As would be available from the status reports, out of 123 solved answers of a particular code and retrieved from the mobile set of one of the persons arrested i.e. Dr Bhupender, 102 answers were found correct on a comparison with the answer key provided by CBSE. As referred to hereinabove, 358 mobile numbers had been pressed into service and at least 300 vests fitted with electronic devices have been used. Having regard to the uncompromising essentiality of a blemishless process of examination involving public participation, we have no alternative but to hold that the examination involved, suffers from an infraction of its expected requirement of authenticity and credence. We are conscious of the fact that every examination being conducted by a human agency is likely to suffer from some shortcomings, but deliberate inroads into its framework of the magnitude and the nature, as exhibited, in the present case, demonstrate a deep-seated and pervasive impact, which ought not to be disregarded or glossed over, lest it may amount to travesty of a proclaimed mechanism to impartially judge the comparative merit of the candidates partaking therein. If such an examination is saved, merit would be a casualty generating a sense of frustration in the genuine students, with aversion to the concept of examination. The possibility of leaning towards unfair means may also be the ultimate fallout. Even if, one undeserving candidate, a beneficiary of such illegal machination, though undetected is retained in the process it would be in denial of the claim of more deserving candidates. At present, the examination stands denuded of its sanctity as it is not possible to be cleansed of all the participating beneficiary candidates with certainty. We are thus, on an overall assessment of the materials on record, left unpersuaded to sustain the examination. We must observe that till this stage of the investigation, no conscious lapse or omission on the part of the Board, contributing to the otherwise appalling mischief has surfaced."

In Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & ors, (2017) 13 SCC 621, the Revenue Baord of the State decided to undertake the recruitment process for appointment of Revenue Talatis and accordingly, an advertisement was published. One day prior to the date of examination, a case was registered against two persons on the allegation that they collected money from some of the candidates. However, the examination process went ahead and while the evaluation was going on, many complaints were received by the authorities. The Committee probe into the matter. The Committee having noticed the irregularities, thought it fit to cancel the entire process of examination, for which the State Government issued an order which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court found that the decision of the Committee was not unreasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the principle laid down in Council of Civil Service Union Vs. Minister for Civil Services, (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL) which has been quoted in Tata Celllular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 whereby the judicial review can be undertaken under three heard - one, Illegality; two, irrationally and three, procedural impropriety. While dismissing the appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"21. Purity of the examination process-whether such examination process pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for employment under the State-is an unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration under our Constitution. The authority of the State to take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any examination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled a principle of law in light of the various earlier decisions of this Court that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination. This Court has on numerous occasions approved the action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinations whenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis of some reasonable material to indicate that the examination process is vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the examination process.

We have already held that there were large-scale malpractices at the examination process and the State was entitled to take appropriate remedial action. In the context of the occurrence of such malpractice, obviously there can be two classes of candidates: those who had resorted to malpractice and others who did not. By the impugned action, no doubt, all of them were treated alike. Whether such herding together would amount to the denial of the equal protection guaranteed under Article 14, is the question.

Identifying all the candidates who are guilty of malpractice either by criminal prosecution or even by an administrative enquiry is certainly a time-consuming process. If it were to be the requirement of law that such identification of the wrongdoers is a must and only the identified wrongdoers be eliminated from the selection process, and until such identification is completed the process cannot be carried on, it would not only result in a great inconvenience to the administration, but also result in a loss of time even to the innocent candidates. On the other hand, by virtue of the impugned action, the innocent candidates (for that matter all the candidates including the wrongdoers) still get an opportunity of participating in the fresh examination process to be conducted by the State. The only legal disadvantage if at all is that some of them might have crossed the upper age-limit for appearing in the fresh recruitment process. That aspect of the matter is taken care of by the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned action is vitiated by lack of nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the State, by herding all the candidates at the examination together."

In Avinash C. & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors., (2018) 6 SCC 614 wherein the issue arose out of a selection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission pursuant to a Notification dated 03-11-2011 for filling up 362 posts of Group 'A' and Group 'D'. There were complaints of malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the examination as well as the interviews. The matter was investigated by CID and on receipt of the interim report, the State Government withdrew the requisition. This order was challenged by the successful candidates before the CAT which quashed it. The High Court set aside the order of the CAT. While disposing of the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"6. The High Court observed that appointment of ineligible, inefficient or persons of questionable integrity has serious adverse impact on the working of the Government and is anathema to the rule of law. Best selection to government service was the mandate of the Constitution. No right accrued to candidates merely by being in the select list. Thus, the Tribunal was in error in directing appointment of persons validity of whose selection was seriously doubted by the Government.

We find that the High Court has referred to material on record in the form of call details between candidates and members of the KPSC.

All the members who interviewed the candidates awarded exactly the same marks to particular candidates. There was no objective assessment by individual members. There appeared to be extraneous reasons in awarding the marks. 566 candidates were awarded same marks which appeared to be predetermined. Digital video recorder in the KPSC building was replaced to destroy evidence. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view of the High Court that the selection could not have been sustained. If the selection is found to be tainted in any manner, it is always open to the authority concerned to annul such selection to maintain purity of the selection process. It may not always be necessary to segregate tainted and untainted candidates when the process itself is tainted. Moreover, at preappointment stage, decision to cancel the selection process can be interfered only if it is patently arbitrary, mala fide or illegal. In the present case, the High Court has rightly applied these parameters and found no case for interference with the decision to annul the selection."

In Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya & ors, (2018) 15 SCC 796 wherein the assessment of the 1st respondent made by the Selection Committee was questioned before the CAT which allowed the application. The High Court confirmed it but the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and is duly represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State Government who have expertise in the matter. In our considered opinion, when a High-Level Committee or an expert body has considered the merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT and the High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee. The courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters."

On perusal of the above decisions, it is clear that there can be no any dispute amongst the learned counsel appearing for the parties about the law being down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Hon'ble Supreme Court appears to have not settled the principle which can be applied in all such cases. The above decisions have been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE:

[18] Before adverting to the rival contentions on merit, this Court proposes to consider the preliminary objection raised jointly by the counsel appearing for the selected candidates and the MPSC as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions on the inter-alia grounds that the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons and that since they having participated in the process of selection and having failed in the Main Examination, 2016, they have no locus standi to question the process of selection. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are all candidates who have appeared in the Main Examination, 2016 and are found to be unsuccessful. They did file the WP(C) No.803 of 2016 and WP(C) No.817 of 2016 questioning the declaration of the Main Examination, 2016 on various grounds as mentioned therein. It may be noted that in the said writ petitions also, a similar preliminary objection was raised before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the said writ petitions. In its judgment and order, the learned Single Judge considered the preliminary objection raised by the respondents therein but felt that there was no need of making any observation thereon, since the writ petitions were to be dismissed on merit. This portion of the judgment and order dated 28-02-2018 of the learned Single Judge as regards the preliminary objections, was not challeneged by the selected candidates nor was it challenged by the MPSC with the result that it had attained finality. Therefore, the aforesaid contention is not available now with them. Moreover, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the said writ petitions, observed:

"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."

In other words, the petitioners therein were granted liberty by the learned Single Judge to approach this Court again, if they found any irregularity after having access with the records. Therefore, the contention that the instant writ petitions are not maintainable, is devoid of any merit and is not tenable. In respect of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the counsel appearing for the selected candidates and the MPSC, there can be no any dispute about the law laid down therein by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but they will have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present cases and in particular, the liberty having been granted to the petitioners by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order, the relevant portion of which remains unchallenged and therefore, their contention is rejected.

APPRECIATION OF LAPSES & IRREGULARITIES:

[19.1] It is not in dispute that in order to conduct the examination, the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 have been framed by the MPSC. There may not be a mandatory provision therein that the Controller of Examination shall be appointed by the State Government or any other competent authority. But while going through the provisions of the said rules, the appointment of the Controller of Examination is implicit and is indispensable. The duties and functions of the Controller of Examinaion have been specifically prescribed therein, some of which, mention may be made, are that the codification shall be done in the presence of the Controller of Examination who shall be respondsble for its safety custody and secrecy. The strong room shall be under the dual control of the Chairman and the Secretary. The papers relating to codification shall be kept under his safe custody in the strong room which shall be under the dual control of the Chairman and the Secretary. All arrangements for the examination shall be made by the Controller of Examination in consultation with the Secretary. The guidelines for centre Supervisors and the Invigilators shall be prepared and sent by the Controller of Examination with the prior approval of the Secretary. The Controller of Examination shall ensure that fake roll numbers are allotted to each candidate in each paper before the answer-books are provided or dispatched to the examiners for assessment. The number of answer books to be provided or sent to each examiner, shall be fixed by the Controller of Examination. Ordinarily, six weeks time shall be allowed for the return of assessed answer-books by the examiners but the Controller of Examination may, in special circumstances, extend the time by 15 days. The specific provision that the strong room shall be under the dual control of the Chairman and the Secretary, is very important and significant for the reason that it makes it very clear that the Controller of Examination and the Secretary shall be two different persons. The rational behind it, appears to be that since the Secretary is in charge of the general administration surrounded by many staff, the task of conducting a fair examination shall be entrusted to the Controller of Examination to maintain a confidentiality and secrecy. The system of keeping documents in a safe custody involving more than one person as is being adopted by the commercial banks, has been contemplated in the said rules. In other words, no one can have any access to the documents without the knowledge and help of the other persons. In the case of the MPSC, no one can have access to the documents without the common knowledge and help of the Controller of Examination, the Chairman and the Secretary. The Controller of Examination alone cannot have access to the documents without the help of the Chairman and the Secretary because the keys of the strong room are with them. Similarly, the Chairman and the Secretary cannot have access to the documents without the key of the almirah/ boxes in which the documents are kept by the Controller of Examination. In the present case, the Controller of Examination was not appointed at all and the Secretary, MPSC was given the additional charge of the Controller of Examination with the result that the object sought to be achieved by the rules, has not been fulfilled at all. In other words, the non-appointment of the Controller of Examination has defeated the very purpose of the examination to be conducted by the MPSC and consequently, the examination to be conducted in a fair manner by it has been thrown in the wind. Despite the fact that the said rules were framed in the year, 2011, leave alone the year in which the MPSC was established for the first time long back, it is not known as to what prevented either the State Government or the MPSC to appoint the Controller of Examination. What is the motive behind it, is best known to the State Government or the MPSC, as the case may be. One can imagine as to what would have happened to an examination being conducted by the MPSC without a full time Controller of Examination being appointed by it. The non-appointment of the Controller of examination appears to be a means by which the MPSC or for that matter, its staff and officials can take the opportunity of indulging in manipulation, malpractices, unfair means, etc. The appointment of a Controller of Examination which is indispensable for a fair conduct of examination, is not a difficult task, if really desired by the MPSC. The non-appointment of Controller of Examination by itself may not be a ground to vitiate the process of selection but it is definitely one of the factors to be taken into consideration.

[19.2] Although it has been envisaged in the rules that the procedure shall be laid down by the MPSC for the evaluation and tabulation of answer books or sheets as the case may be. The contention of the petitioners is that no such a procedure has been laid down by the MPSC and this seems to be correct for the reason that no document in support of the procedure being laid down by the MPSC, has been placed on record. In any examination conducted by the MPSC, the evaluation and the tabulation of marks in the answer sheets are the most important and crucial stages, any commission of mistakes or error of which during these stages, will make a lot of difference while deciding the fate of a candidate. It is at these stages that the maximum care and caution will have to be taken by the MPSC and in particular, the person/ authority concerned who are involved therein. The conduct of examination is the sole task assigned to the MPSC by the provisions of law enacted by the State Government and therefore, the MPSC being an institution, ought to conduct it after following certain norms. Any exercise of power by the Governmental authorities including the MPSC without following the procedure prescribed in law is bad. In the present case, since the procedure as regards the evaluation and tabulation of answer sheets, has not been laid down by the MPSC, many irregularities have been committed by it, one of which being that there is no record of handing over and taking over of answer sheets. In the absence of such a record, it is not clear as to who handed over the answer sheets to the examiner; to whom the answer sheets have been handed over; when the answer sheets have been handed over and when the answer sheets have been returned to the MPSC by the examiner. The records of these stages are to be maintained by the MPSC to prevent any room of manipulation. Since the procedure has not been laid down by the MPSC, it appears to have given licence to the examiner to do whatever he feels like. It is not clear as to how the answer sheets were evaluated in the office of the MPSC and it is not in dispute that one examiner had taken answer sheets to his home outside Manipur for evaluation. Some of the examiners are said to have sat for about 13 hours continuously with a break of an hour or so for lunch while the answer sheets were being evaluated at the office of the MPSC. This arrangement continued for about seven days. The office hour of the MPSC is, probably, upto 5 p.m and only the God would know what would have happened thereafter. It has been reported that the Secretary, MPSC had taken some answer sheets for evaluation outside the State. While the evaluation was going on, the scrutiny and decoding was commenced simultaneously and that too, in the office of the MPSC where there is no proper room for doing it and at that point of time, 400-500 candidates did come to the MPSC to sit for the examination. Such things might have been allowed by the MPSC to happen because there is no procedure to be followed by it which has kept the room opened for manipulation. It has been stated in the affidavit of the MPSC that the answer sheets were evaluated at the office of the MPSC except in respect of some papers which were taken outside Manipur for evaluation. There is no material on record to show as to which answer sheets had been taken outside the State for evaluation by the Secretary, MPSC. The MPSC being an institution, the decision taken by it in such important matter should have been a collective one and no material has been placed on record to show that a decision was taken by the MPSC to authorize the Secretary to take out answer sheets outside the State for evaluation. Even a copy of the letter formally addressed to the examiner/ evaluator, who resides outside the State, requesting him to evaluate the answer sheets, was not produced for perusal by this Court. Without such a formal letter of authority, no payment could be made officially to him by the MPSC for the work done by him. Contrary to what has been stated by the MPSC in its affidavit, it has been stated in the report of the Commission that as has been stated above, one of the examiners who evaluates the paper 'General Studies', had taken home about 300-400 answer sheets for evaluation. Was he authorized by the MPSC through a decision taken by it, is one of the questions which remains unanswered by the MPSC. These irregularities could have been obviated, had the procedure been laid down by the MPSC in time. From these irregularities, it is evident that non-laying down the procedure is fatal, so far as the process of selection is concerned.

[19.3] The irregularities detected by the Committee in its report dated 12-03-2018 are not in dispute amongst the parties except the respondent No.24 whose counsel submitted that an error had crept in the report of the Committee in respect of him and that the same might be expunged by this Court. As the details of the report having been mentioned hereinabove, the same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. But the irregularities are many and alarming. There are many cases of marks being decreased or increased in the totaling and in respect of the petitioner in WP(C) No.313 of 2018, the allegation was that 88 marks which are huge in number for such an examination, were not added in the calculation of his total marks. The alteration of marks had been done without the initials of the examiner. Many of the answer sheets were not signed either by the invigilator or by the Supervisor or by the Examiner. There are answer sheets in which marks were not given for the answers but had been shown in the tabulation of marks in the front page of the answer sheets. These irregularities could have been rectified, if there was a proper scrutiny being carried out by the MPSC. It has been stated in the affidavit of the MPSC that the scrutiny was done with the help of the lecturers from different colleges and the higher secondary schools. How many lecturers were engaged by the MPSC is not made known to this Court and any decision taken in that regard by the MPSC is also not known to this Court because no material had been produced by it. In fact, the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the MPSC without referring to any decision or document, is not acceptable to this Court. The averments made in their affidavit have been contradicted in the reports submitted by the Commission or the Committee. It is unbelievable that when the scrutiny was carried out by the lecturers, the aforesaid irregularities could have not been detected by them at all. That itself shows the quality or the standard of scrutiny that the MPSC maintains and in other words, the scrutiny may have been done for the namesake only so that the result could be declared at an early done. But the MPSC appears to have forgotten that such problems might arise in future. One aspect that needs to be considerd by this Court is that even though the evaluation of the last subject was concluded only on 03-10-2016, the result of the Main Examinaton, 2016 was declared on the next day itself. It is hard to believe that the scrutiny would have been carried out in few hours prior to the declaration of the result and that too, in the night. There is a possibility of the select list being kept ready by the MPSC since the result was to be declared in the morning of the next day. The stage of scrutiny is also one of the important and essential stages through which the mistakes or errors that have crept in during the stages of evaluation and tabulation, could have been rectified by the MPSC. Had the scrutiny been done in a proper manner and sincerely, many of the irregularities as detected in the report of the Committee, could have been rectified and removed by the MPSC.

[19.4] In the Notification dated 04-03-2016 issued by the DP, Government of Manipur which was uploaded in the website of the MPSC only on 04-09-2016, the marks fixed by the MPSC in the Main Examination, 2016 for screening of candidates in General English was 40%, while that of the UPSC is only 25%. The contention of the petitioners is that it was contrary to the decision of this Court rendered in H. Bobby Sharma Vs. MPSC, WP(C) No.150 of 2013. If such an order had really been passed by the High Court, the MPSC was duty bound to comply with it. As per the instructions printed on the answer scripts, it has been specifically provided that no extra sheets will be provided at any circumstance but in some centers, the candidates were allowed to take extra sheets. This is contrary to the instructions given to the candidates. The stand of the MPSC is that it was announced in the centres that the extra-sheets would be provided to the candidates but no materials had been placed on record to show that a decision was taken by the MPSC in that regard.

The moderation or scalling the marks were not adopted by the MPSC which is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It may be noted that in the absence of any specific rules, the vacuum could have been filled up by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decisions. The report given by the Commission is to the effect that one of the expert evaluators who was employed for evaluation of the paper 'Essay', had taken 300-400 answer booklets to his home town for evaluation. It is nowhere mentioned about it in the affidavit filed by the MPSC, rather a vague averment was made to the effect that in respect of some papers, the Secretary, MPSC took out answer sheets outside the State for the evaluation.

The Secretary, MPSC went out of station from 15-09-2016 to 24-09-2016 taking answer sheets outside the State for evaluation. If that be so, the corollary issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the examination was conducted in the absence of the Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination. No materials have been placed on record in this regard. It has been stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the selected candidates that there is no rule which prohibits the Secretary from handing over the charge to the Addl. Secretary. It may be correct to that extent that the charge of the Secretary can be handed over to the Addl. Secretary while the Secretary was out of station. But it could not have been done so in respect of the Controller of Examination because there is no post of the Addl/ Deputy Controller of Examiation in the MPSC as is being done in respect of the other institutions like BOSE, COSEM etc. If the keys of the almirah/ boxes as well as that of the strong room, were given to the Addl. Secretary, the secrecy would have been diluted and moreover, the coding, decoding etc. would have been done by the Addl. Secretary in the absence of the Secretary. In other words, everything was done by the Addl. Secretary during the said ten days towards the conduct of examination namely keeping the answer sheets in his custody; coding of the answer sheets; handing over the answer sheets to the examiner; receiving the answer sheets from the examiner; scrutinizing the answer sheets; decoding the answer sheets etc. which is not contemplated in the rules. The MPSC appears to have taken the examination very lightly, like a child's play, completely forgetting that it would decide and determine the career of a candidate.

The declaration of the result of the Main Examination, 2016 in ten days from the date on which the examination of the last subject was held, is unfortunate. The normal time that can be taken by the examiner for evaluation as prescribed in the rules is six weeks. It may be noted that the said time period might have been prescribed keeping in mind the time required for the evulation of answer sheets. The said time period can be extended by 15 days thereafter at the discretion of the Controller of Examination. It may be for this reason that about two months' time had been taken by the MPSC in declaring the results in respect of the Competitive Examination, 2013 and 2014. What was the need of declaring the result in a haphazard manner and that too, with the said irregularities, is beyond comprehensible.

One of the stands of the MPSC is that while the Main Examination, 2016 was going on in full swing continuously for few days and one of the centres was at MPSC building itself, the coding, evaluation, scrutiny, decoding etc. involving a large number of examiners and the lecturers who were engaged for scrutiny, were started simultaneously at the MPSC building itself and that too, in the absence of the Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination. It is hard to believe it. Whether it would have been possible to be done in the MPSC building itself with limited staff and limited rooms, is the question which remains unanswered by the MPSC. Had it been done so as contented by the MPSC, it would have become a fish market and the possibility of maintainng the confidentiality of the process of selection being diluted, could have been on the higher side.

[20] The process of selection involves and includes various stages of actions to be taken by the MPSC commencing from the date of notification inviting applications till the declaration of results of the Main Examination, 2016. Appropriate actions are to be taken by the MPSC at every stage in accordance with what has been prescribed in the rules. Although the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 were framed as late as in the year, 2011, no Controller of Examination was appointed nor was the procedure laid down by the MPSC for the evaluation and tabulation of answer sheets. This may have been deliberately done by the MPSC for an agenda and motive which is best known to it. It was a serious lapse on the part of the MPSC because of which the aforesaid irregularities had occurred, which would go to the root of the process of selection. If the MPSC Conduct Rules, 2011 were not enough to conduct examinations in a fair manner, the MPSC could have amended them suitably. Since the MPSC was empowered to do so in the Constitution of India, nothing prevented it from doing the needful. But the MPSC failed to do it for the reasons best known to it. From the aforesaid lapses and irregularities, it is quite evident that the process of selection had not been done in a right and just manner and in other words, it had not been done in a fair and reasonable manner which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The MPSC being an Institution and more particularly, a constitutional body, ought to act fairly and reasonably. It has been stated by the counsel appearing for the selected candidates that there was no allegation against the selected candidates about their being indulged in malpractices, manipulation, corruption etc. and therefore, by applying the principle of segregation of tainted case from the untainted case, their services should not be disturbed, to which the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners was/ is that there was no material with them to make such allegations. According to them, they applied under the RTI for furnishing copies of the answer sheets of the selected candidates but the same were/ are denied to them by the MPSC in spite of the fact that the learned Single Judge had issued directions for it, probably, with the idea that the appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, in respect of this portion, are pending. Since this Court is of the view that the Main Examination, 2016 cannot be said to be an examination at all, in its true sense, keeping in mind the cummulative effect of the lapses and irregularities and in other words, since it cannot be said to be the examination conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, the question of segregation of tainted cases from the untained cases will not arise at all and the consequence thereof ought to follow. The lapses and irregularities as mentioned hereinabove, will go to the root of the case. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates that there was no allegation of manipulation, malpractices etc. against them or for that matter, against the officials of the MPSC, is concerned, it may be noted that it will be known only after the matter is invested by the police or CBI or any other investigating agencies. Relying upon and emphasizing the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in Joginder Pal case (supra), it has been submitted by the Counsel appearing for the selected candidates that the cases of the selected candidates shall be segregated from that of the others because no irregularity was found in their answer sheets. As has been observed hereinabove, the segregation is not possible for the reason that the Main Examination, 2016 has not been held in a fair and just manner as is evident from the report of the Committee. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Pal case itself has held that an appointment made in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitutiton of India would be void. Moreover, in Krishan Yadav case (supra), it has been held that when the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as fraud unravels everything. To put in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly, the selection has been set aside. Similar is the case with the present case where the Main Examination, 2016 has been conducted in an unfair and unjust manner and in other words, in view of the lapses and the irregularities, the MPSC might not have done that without a motive, in the sense that its modus operandi is arbitrary and malafide. In any case, the conduct of the Main Examination, 2016 by the MPSC is contrary to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav case (supra) to the effect that the selection of candidates for the administrative services must be made strictly on merits, keeping in view the various factors which go to make a strong, efficient and people oriented administrator.

[21.1] As regards the writ appeals, it may be noted that they have been preferred against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions. The contentions raised in the said writ petitions have been rejected mainly on the basis of the report submitted by the Commission and in particular, the findings arrived at by the Commission. But some of the irregularities alleged by the petitioners and found in the said reports of the Commission, were considered by the learned Single Judge but the same were not appreciated properly by it. Firstly, as regards the codification, the learned Single Judge observed that the involvement of nine persons during codification could not be said to be an ideal situation but it did not interfere because the Commission did not come across any undesirable or doubtful aspect in the codification process. 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. Secondly, on the issue relating to number of answer sheets to be evaluated by an examiner in a day, the learned Single Judge observed that 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 and 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. Thridly, as regards the non-announcement by way of written information/ notification that the candidates can take extra sheets, the learned Single Judge agreed with the contention of the petitioners that in absence of a written notification, mere verbal announcement would not meet the requirement of law. It held that 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. 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. 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. Fourthly, as regards the contention 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, the learned Single Judge observed that the system of moderation is optional which can 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. Fifthly, with reference to sub-rule (xii) of Rule 26-B of the aforesaid rules, the learned Single Judge held that it is not disclosed either in the affidavit-in-opposition nor in the report as to when the Controller of Examination took such decision about the number of answer-books to be provided to each examiner which are to be examined on a single day. 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 a.m. upto 9:30 p.m. 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 B.K. Sharma 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. Sixthly, 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 MPSC 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. The rules also do not provide that the result of the written examination must be declared within specified days. They have neither offered, nor has the report also mentioned 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 a.m. which continued upto 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. 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. Sevently, 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 MPSC must lay down the norm for fixing the number of answer scripts to be examined by the evaluators. The MPSC 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 MPSC 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 MPSC 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 MPSC 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. Eightly, it is too fundamental not to be noticed that there are certain public institutions like the MPSC 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 MPSC. Therefore, it is important that those who are involved with the functioning of the MPSC 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.

[21.2] In spite of the above observations, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the Commission did not find any irregularity in the process of selection. The Commission was authorised by the leraned Single Judge to examine all the documents and papers and examine with persons, officials or evaluators involved in the entire exercise of evaluation beginning with co-dification upto the final stage of tabulation and declaration of results and the Commissioner could have access to the answer scripts of all the candidates as the Commission considered appropriate including the answer scripts of all the subjects. The Commissioner vide its report dated 13-01-2017 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. The scope of the enquiry was very wide but it is surprising to note that during the course of enquiry, none of the irregularities which were detected in the subsequent report of the Committee, was found by the Commission. It is not clear as to which answer sheets had been examined by the Commission and if the Commission had really examined the answer sheets of the candidates, there is no reason as to why they could not detect even one irregularity. The Commission appears to have conducted the enquiry in the same manner as the scrutiny was allegedly done by the MPSC. One probability is that during the course of enquiry, only the selective answer sheets which are all right in all aspects which the MPSC knew about it, might have been shown to the Commission. The findings of the Commission which are not based on documents, are mere observations. In view of the findings arrived at by the Committee as aforesaid, the findings arrived at by the Commission can be said to be erroneous; will have no vaue at all and cannot be relied upon at all. Therefore, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge relying upon the findings arrived by the Commission, will be rendered bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Moreover, from the observations made by the learned Single Judge, it is absolutely clear that the learned Single Judge knew that there might be some irregularities in the process of selection, because of which it gave the liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court, if they found some irregularities/ illegalities after they had access to the records, otherwise there was no need of granting such liberty after the writ petitions having been dismissed by it.

[22] The MPSC was established in terms of the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. It is not only a public institution but also a constitutional body entrusted with the solemn task of conducting examinations. The purpose for which the MPSC was established under the provisiosn of Article 315 of the constitution of Inida is to conduct examination and to render services relating to methods of recruitment, the principle to be followed in making appointments etc. The staff or the officials of the MPSC are public servants, whose salaries are paid out of the public money. As mandated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the MPSC ought to act fairly and reasonably and to conduct examinations in a fair and reasonable manner. From the materials on record, the MPSC has miserably failed to discharge its duties properly, sincerely and effectively. It is not only their act of negligence but also deliberate act on its part. The MPSC appears to have proceeded on the footing that it could do whatever it feels like and that nobody could question its bonafide. This Main Examination, 2016 which is considered to be the highest examination in the State, had been conducted for the namesake without any botheration about its outcome. In other words, it has not cared at all about the career of a large number of candidates. It is unfortunate that it has claimed that the irregularities may be attributed to human errors. One or two irregularities can be said to be attributed to human error but the irregularities which are innumerable and alarming, demonstrate the callous attitude of the MPSC in playing with the career and future of the candidates. Considering the lapses and irregularities, no considerate and reasonable man would agree that the Main Examination, 2016 had been conducted in a fair and just manner. This is not the first time that the MPSC has behaved in this fashion and its manner of conducting examination is condemnable. In writ petitions being WP(C) No.993 of 2014 and other connected matters, the validity and correctness of the process of selection conducted by the MPSC and in particular, the advertisement inviting applications for appointment of 280 Assistant Professors for the Government Colleges in the State, was challenged and while disposing of the said writ petitions with certain directions, this Court vide its judgment and order dated 11-01-2017 had observed as under:

"It is thus clear that the MPSC is either incapable of holding such selection properly or is absolutely irresponsible or negligent in the discharge of its duties. There is hardly any selection/ DPC, conducted by the MPSC, which is not challenged by the aggrieved persons before this court. The MPSC is an institution/ authority constituted under the provisions of Article 315 of the Constitution of India with its function to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State Government and it is very unfortunate that the MPSC has failed to discharge its functions effectively and in case it continues to do so, the public will lose its faith in it. It is high time for the MPSC to introspect, to apply its mind and try to improve its functioning to a great extent."

The observations made by this Court hereinabove appear to have fallen on deaf ears of the MPSC which continues to behave in the same fashion. Moreover, it may be noted that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, had observed that it was the duty of the MPSC to rectify the errors in future before any examination was conducted by it. The MPSC did not bother about it at all and the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2019 was commenced by the MPSC with the issuance of an advertisement dated 08-01-2019 but when it was challenged in Nelojit Mayengbam & anr. Vs. Manipur Public Service Commission & ors., W.P. (C) No. 373 of 2019; Namdithiu Moita Vs. State of Manipur & ors., W.P. (C) No. 375 of 2019 & Thounaojam Ropeshtajit Singh & anr. Vs. State of Manipur & anr., W.P. (C) No. 378 of 2019, this Court vide its order dated 10-05-2019 intervened and stayed the process of selection on the ground that the MPSC had failed to implement the observations made by the learned Single Judge and in particular, the non-appointment of the Controller of Examination. In addition to the above, some of such cases are still pending before this Court for disposal. It is the right time for the MPSC or for that matter, its staff or officials to be penalized for their misdeeds which they have been doing for the last many years and if not penalized now, they would continue to do so in future at the cost of public interest and public money.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the MPSC has no intention to conduct any examination in a fair and just manner. It had, in the present case, miserably failed to discharge its duties and functions as mandated in the Constitution of India. It would like to continue holding examinations, only in name, with a half baked rules so that it could manipulate it. If the MPSC was/ is unable to frame an appropriate and correct rule, it could do so by taking the help from the UPSC or any other State Public Service Commission. There is no harm in doing that. Whenever an allegation is made against the MPSC towards holding of an examination by it, the readymade answer is that the rule is silent on that. For example, it is the stand of the MPSC that the signature of the Supervisor on the answer sheets is not mandatory, even though there is a column specified and earmarked for it therein because the rule does not provide for it and that no prejudice will be caused to the candidates. On a query put to the counsel appearing for the MPSC if there is any provision in the rules which provides that the invigilator and the examiner shall put their signature on the answer sheets, the answer of the counsel is in the negative. What is the status of such answer sheets is not made known to anyone. The consequence of such answer sheets without the signature of the invigilator or the Supervisor or the Examiner is not indicated in the rules except creating a room for manipulation, replacement etc. and in such a small State like Manipur, the answer sheets can be indentified even after the same being codified, if the answer sheets are evaluated in the manner as has been done in the present case.

[22] In view of the above, the writ appeals are allowed and consequently, the judgment and order dated 28-02-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.

The writ petitions being WP(C) No. 606 of 2017; WP(C) No.725 of 2017 and WP(C) No.313 of 2018 are allowed and consequently, the Main Examination, 2016 initiated and conducted pursuant to the Notification dated 07-04-2016 issued by the MPSC is quashed and set aside and further, the consequential orders dated 22-06-2017; 26-06-2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur and the order dated 23-06-2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur are quashed and set aside. However, it is open to the MPSC to conduct the Main Examination, 2016 afresh after due notice being given to the candidates.

The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi is directed to investigate into the conduct of the Main Examination, 2016 by the MPSC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and take appropriate action thereafter in accordance with law. A certified copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the CBI, New Delhi, at the earliest possible, for doing the needful in time.

There shall be no order as to costs.