Yengkhom Jivan Singh And Ors vs Manipur Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary And Ors

Kh. Nobin Singh, J

[1] Heard Shri M. Rarry, learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri Julius Riamei, learned Advocate and Shri B.R. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing

for the review petitioners; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Manipur Public Service Commission; Shri R.K. Deepak,

learned Advocate, Smt. G. Pushpa, learned Advocate, Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior Advocate and Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, leraned Advocate

appearing for the private respondents.

[2] There are altogether 10 (ten) review petitions which are categorized into two groups-one, review petitions filed by the State Government and two,

review petitions filed by the successful candidates. These review petitions are directed against the common judgment and order dated 18-10-2019

passed by this Court in writ appeals being WA No.19 of 2017; WA No.29 of 2017 and writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of 2017; WP(C) No.725 of

2017 and WP(C) No.313 of 2018. Since the issues involved herein are identical, all the review petitions are considered together and disposed of by this

common judgment and order.

[3.1] Facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of the present review petitions are, in short, that the Manipur Public Service Commission

(hereinafter referred to as “the MPSC†issued a Notification dated 29-12-2015, followed by a fresh Notification dated 07-04-2016 inviting

applications from amongst the eligible candidates for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Examination, 2016â€) for filling up 82 posts of different categories of service as mentioned therein. The Preliminary Examination, 2016 was

held on 03-07-2016 and the result thereof was declared on 08-07-2016 whereby 1130 were declared successful and the Main Examination, 2016 was

commenced from 04-09-2016 and continued till 23-09-2016 and the result thereof was declared on 04-10-2016.

[3.2] Being aggrieved by the recruitment process, two writ petitions being WP(C) No.803 of 2016 and WP(C) No.817 of 2017 came to be filed by the

petitioners therein questioning its validity and correctness praying inter-alia for quashing the Main Examination, 2016 and for instituting a High Level

Committee to investigate into the manner in which the Main Examination, 2016 was conducted by the MPSC on various allegations, some of which

are that some of the candidates were provided with extra sheets contrary to the instructions; that the result of the Main Examination 2016 was

declared in haste on 04-10-2016 within 11 days from the date of final examination which is unreasonable; that the MPSC did not follow the provisions

of the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to “the MPSC Conduct Rules,

2011â€); that there was no moderation or scaling of marks as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The stand of the MPSC was that

since the examination was conducted in terms of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2010, it could complete the process of evaluation of the answer

sheets within a short time by engaging more manpower. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent Nos.4 to 18, it was 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. 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 the charge to the Addl. Secretary, MPSC to look after the duties of the Secretary,

MPSC in his absence. When the rules were silent, the implication would be that the MPSC would have the power to exercise its duties in furtherance

of its objectives.

 [3.3] On 13-10-2016, when WP(C) No.803 of 2016 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge decided to proceed to examine the

evaluation and other co-related processes keeping in mind certain genuine doubts arisen in the minds of the public. A Commission consisting of a

Chairman and two members, was appointed to examine all relevant documents including the answer scripts. Three reports dated 13-01-2017 were

submitted by the Commission and after reading all the reports, the petitioners therein were of the view that the reports were not unanimous, as they

were not judiciously carried out and were unsatisfactory. Being aggrieved by the findings of the reports, WP(C) No.606 of 2017 was filed by them

questioning the reports on various grounds including the grounds that the reports were contradictory to each other and that the Commission was not

aware of the rules framed by the MPSC.

[3.4] After hearing the learned counsels 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 mainly on the basis of 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. The

Commission 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 Commission did not find any material irregularity or indications of manipulation by the officials, functionaries or agents of the

MPSC. As regards the points raised by the petitioners, various observations were made by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the learned Single Judge

noticed many irregularities and lapses on the part of the MPSC as is evident from its judgment and order, towards conducting the examination but it

did not interfere with the process of recruitment on the ground that the rules were silent as regards the requirement of following thereof by the MPSC

and that the MPSC was required to lay down the detailed guidelines. However, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, granted

liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the appropriate forum by observing that after having accessed the marks and answer scripts or answer

scripts of the concerned candidates and other information, if the petitioners were able to bring out any patent irregularity in the conduct of the

examination, the petitioners could not be debarred from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, in spite of non-

interference by it in the those proceedings.

[3.5] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28-02-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeals being WA No.19 of 2017 and WA

No.29 of 2017 were preferred on the inter-alia grounds that in spite of several anomalies and lapses in the manner of conducting the examination and

in the evaluation of the answer scripts, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the result of the examination. The Commission appointed by

the learned Single Judge did not make any conclusive findings on relevant facts. 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

examination process could not be vitiated. The learned Single Judge recognized that there were serious lapses on the part of MPSC in the manner of

conducting the Main Examination 2016. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the MPSC did not frame the rules as required under

Rule 26-B to guide the evaluation and tabulation; that the role and duties of the Controller of Examination could not be assigned to the Secretary,

MPSC and that the MPSC Rules 2011 did not provide any provision for taking the answer scripts outside Manipur for evaluation.

[3.6] In the meanwhile, the petitioners therein and many other candidates applied to the MPSC for furnishing copies of their answer scripts under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 and on receipt thereof, they 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 placed on record. Accordingly, the writ petitions being WP(C) No.606 of

2017 & WP(C) No.725 of 2017 came to be filed for quashing the orders dated 22-06-2017 and dated 26-06-2017 issued by the State Government

thereby appointing as many as 79 successful candidates to various posts; to hold the Main Examination 2016 afresh and to direct the CBI to

investigate into the manner in which the Main Examination, 2016 was held and proceed in accordance with law. The stand of the MPSC as indicated

in its affidavit filed on 20-08-2018 was that it had 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 might 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 in the Main Examination, 2016. 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. The stand of the private respondents was that since the petitioners

had failed to qualify for the cut-off marks, they had no locus standi to challenge the recruitment process. There was no finding whatsoever of any

irregularity or illegality of any kind with regard to the answer sheets of the answering respondents except minor inconsequential aberrations in respect

of the respondent Nos. 37, 40 and 54. The result obtained after correcting the mistakes or irregularities, did not change the original position of the

selected and non- selected candidates.

[3.7] On 20-11-2017, this Court after hearing the counsels appearing for the parties, constituted a Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the

Committeeâ€) consisting of two persons- one, a retired 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 the successful

candidates, questioning the order dated 20-11-2017, by way of a petition for special leave 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 should 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 in respect of the petitioners only, 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. Thereafter, the Committee, after holding the enquiry, submitted its final report on

09-07-2018.

[3.8] A writ petition being WP(C) No. 313 of 2018 came to be filed by a petitioner praying for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the

Main Examination 2016 as there had been patent irregularities in the evaluation and tabulation of his answer scripts for the ends of justice on the

ground that in his answer scripts, two glaring irregularities were found by him.

[3.9] The above writ appeals as well as the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide its common judgment and order dated 18-10-2019, the

relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

“[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.â€​

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.â€​

Review Petition Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 of 2020:

[4.1] The above review petitions have been filed by the State Government on the inter-alia grounds that in view of the subsequent and important

discovery of new material facts, the judgment and order passed by this Court calls for immediate interference by this Court as the same shocks the

judicial conscience. The members of the Committee are interested parties belonging to the unsuccessful candidates and therefore, they cannot be

permitted to hold the enquiry against the successful candidates. They had a duty to disclose to all the parties of the present proceedings as well as this

Court and should act fairly that their children had appeared in the examination and unsuccessful but they had failed to disclose the details thereof. It is

well settled principle of law that no man can be a judge of his own cause. Despite the exercise of due diligence by the State Government, the fact was

not within their knowledge and hence, it could not be produced before this Court when the judgment and order was passed by this Court. The

successful candidates came to know about it through the RTI and information thereof was furnished to the State Governmet vide their letter dated 23-

12-2019. This Court would have declined to quash the entire Main Examination in the event of the report of the enquiry being set aside as there is no

finding of fraud, malpractice, serious irregularity and favouritism of any kind. If the above facts, new and important material evidence, were brought in

time, this Court would have never passed this common judgment and order.

Review Petition Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 12 of 2020

[4.2] The above review petitions have been filed by the review petitioners who are successful candidates, on the allegations that the members of the

fact finding Committee are interested parties in the present case and their interest is to cancel the MCSCCE-2016 so that their children who were

unsuccessful candidates, can get unfair second chance. The review petitioners were not aware of the aforesaid fact before passing the judgment and

order dated 18-10-2019 as the members of the Committee failed to reveal it and therefore, the report submitted by them deserves to be cancelled. The

act of the members of the Committee is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the rule against bias, i.e., Nemo Judex in Causa Sua, one

cannot be a judge on his own cause. Had these facts been placed before the High Court during the proceedings or at the time of hearing, the

impugned judgment and order would not have been passed by this Court.

[4.3] Some counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents through their respective advocates and the stand taken by them is almost identical

and therefore, the specific and detailed averments made therein are not referred to herein for the sake of brevity. Their stand is that the review

petitions are liable to be dismissed, as the same are devoid of any merit only on the ground that they failed to demonstrate that there is an error

apparent on the face of the record which cannot be fished out and searched. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be filed

like an appeal in disguise.

[4.4] The stand of the MPSC as indicated in its affiadavit filed in review petition No.4 of 2020 is that the judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 passed

by this Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a petition for special leave to appeal vide Diary No.3951 of 2019

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing it, passed an order dated 22-11-2019 directing the MPSC to hold the main examination

afresh as early as possible and in addition thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it very clear that it had not commented anything with regard

to CBI investigation. A review petition is by no means an appeal in disguise and its scope is very restricted. The discovery of new evidence as alleged

by the review petitioners, cannot be a ground for review, as the children of the member of the Committee were not allowed to sit for the Main

Examination, 2016. After the dismissal of the said SLPs by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the MPSC in its full meeting held on 14-08- 2020 decided

to hold the examination tentatively in the month of October/ November, 2020 for which a notification was issued on the same day, followed by a

notification dated 27-08-2020. The review petition is not maintainable, as the impugned judgment and order has been acted upon by it. But in its

rejoinder, it has been stated by the State Government that it can never be claimed that this Court has directed the MPSC to conduct examination from

the stage of mains only and not prelims. The MPSC has taken a stand contrary to that of its stand taken in the affidavit dated 20- 080-2018. The

contention of the MPSC is misconceived, as the members of the Committee who are the fathers of two unsuccessful candidates, can never be said to

be neutral and their appointment is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

[5] In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320 ,the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the issue as to whether the

review petitioner therein has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order and satisfies the criteria for reviewing the same in review

jurisdiction, had considered the scope of the review jurisdiction. After referring to its earlier decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could

not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words ""any other sufficient reason"" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos

v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean ""a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule"". The same principles

have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of

justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review

petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negativeâ€​.

The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been referred to and relied upon by this Court in many cases. On top of that, it has been

referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of its recent decision rendered in Akshay Kumar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 3 SCC

431 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is no longer res intrega that the scope of review is limited and review cannot be

entertained except in case of error apparent on the face of the record. Review is not a rehearing of the appeal over again. In a review petition, it is not

for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion.

[6] Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it may be appropriate for this Court to examine as to what are the principles of ‘Natural

justice’ and what are its extent and scope. Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. It is not possible to define precisely and

scientifically the expression ‘natural justice’. It is, like the doctrine of ultra vires and public policy, is a branch of public law. The law is settled

after the powerful pronouncement of Byles, J in Cooper Vs. Wandsworth Board of Works wherein it has been held that although there are no positive

words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will apply the omission of the legislature. The above

principle is accepted in India also. In the case of A.K. Karaipak Vs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, the Supreme Court propounded:

“The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate in areas

not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement itâ€​.

In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court observed:

“It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action

proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied

from the nature of the functions to be performed by the authority which has the power to take positive or damaging actions.â€​

“The rigid view that the principles of natural justice applied only to judicial and quasi-judicial acts and not to administrative acts no longer holds the

filedâ€​.

In Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, Krishna Iyer, J says:

“indeed, from the legendary days of Adam- and of Kautilya Arthashastra- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it

social justiceâ€​.

The expression “civil consequencesâ€​ used in National Textile Workers’ Union Vs. PR Ramakrishnan, (1983) 1 SCC228 has not been defined.

But in Mohinder Singh Gill case, Krishna Iyer, J observed:

“In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequenceâ€​.

In Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151, the Supreme Court held that with the growth of administrative law, the old distinction between

judicial act and administrative act has withered away. Today, even a pure administrative action entailing civil consequences must be consistent with

the rules of natural justice.

In Union of India Vs. PK Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850, the Supreme Court observed:

“The extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice can not be imprisoned within the straitjacket of a rigid formulaâ€​.

Similarly in A.K. Kairakpak (supra), the Supreme Court observed that what a particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must

depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case. In Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321, after referring to

several decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court sated:

“Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the

individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting

those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injusticeâ€​.

In Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 72,5 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the rules of natural justice are not codified nor are

they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible.

In Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 5,4 one of the issues involved therein was as regards the compliance with the principles of

natural justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“26. This brings us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt

whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However,

whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may

in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral

hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing.

It is also, however, well settled that it cannot put any straitjacket formula. It may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is

not necessary where it would be a futile exercise.

A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in

view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was

not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of

being heard.â€​

In P.D Dinakaran (I) Vs. Judges Enquiry Committee & ors, (2011) 8 SCC 380, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“31 The consideration of the aforesaid question needs to be prefaced by a brief reference to the nature and scope of the rule against bias and how

the same has been applied by the courts of common law jurisdiction in India for invalidating judicial and administrative actions/orders. Natural justice is

a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural justice are “basic valuesâ€

which a man has cherished throughout the ages. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to

reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice.

Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness. The underlying object of rules of natural justice is to ensure fundamental

liberties and rights of subjects. They thus serve public interest. The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is

not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice.â€​

In Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., (2016) 2 SCC 779, after referring to its earlier decisions and in particular, Sadananda Halo Vs. Mumtaz

Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 616, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held:

In this context the authority in Sadananda Halo Vs. Mumtaz Ali Sheikh is quite pertinent. The Divisin Bench referred to the decision in All India

SC & ST Employees Assn. V. A. Arthur Jeen wherein this Court had addressed the necessity of joining the necessary candidates as parties. The

Court referred to the principle of natural justice as enunciated in Canara Bank V. Debasis Das. We may profoundly reproduce the same:

“63. ..Natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But

they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based

substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are

usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to

determine its form. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights

of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasijudicial and administrative authority while making an order

affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.’ (Debasis Das case26, SCC pp. 560h-561a)†And

again: (Sadananda Halo case, p. 648, para 63)

“63. …Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always

expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular

rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of

that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has

withered away. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance…’ (Debasis Das

case, SCC p. 561e-f)â€​

We have referred to the aforesaid passages as they state the basic principle behind the doctrine of natural justice, that is, no order should be

passed behind the back of a person who is to be adversely affected by the order. The principle behind the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 that the Code of

Civil Procedure enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs. An unsuccessful candidate challenging the selection as far as the service

jurisprudence is concerned is bound to make the selected candidates partiesâ€​.

[7.1] The submissions of Shri M. Rarry, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Manipur, the review petitioners are that after

the SLPs had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government came to know that the members of the Committee costituted

by this Court failed to disclose that their chidren had appeared in the Preliminary Examination; that it was a fraud played on this Court and that since it

is a new fact/ evidence, the judgment and order dated 18-10- 2019 passed by this Court on the basis of its report, is liable to be reviewed by this Court.

This Court would have declined to quash the entire Main Examination, 2016 in the event of the report being set aside, as there is no finding of fraud,

malpractice, serious irregularity and favoritism of any kind in the record of the case. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed by him on

the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & ors Vs. State of Haryana & ors, (1985) 4 SCC 417 ;M/s R.B

Sreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das Vs. Settlement Commissioner (IT & WT) & anr, (1989) 1 SCC 62; 8Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil

Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421; Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India & ors, (2000) 6 SCC 22;4 Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & anr Vs. State of Gujarat

&ors, (2004) 4 SCC 158; Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Netajit Cricket Clb & ors, (2005) 4 SCC 74;1 Hanza Haji Vs. State of Kerala &

anr, (2006) 7 SCC 416; A.V Papayya Sastry & ors Vs. Govt. of AP & ors, (2007) 4 SCC 22;1 K.D Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India & ors,

(2008) 12 SCC 481; Uma Nath Pandey & ors Vs. State of Uttar Paradesh & anr, (2009) 12 SCC 4;0 State of Chhatisgarh & ors Vs. Dhirjo Kumar

Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600; Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & ors, (2010) 12 SCC 254; P.D Dinakaran (I) Vs. Judges Enquiry Committee & ors,

(2011) 8 SCC 380; Azija Begum Vs. State of Maharastra & anr, (2012) 3 SCC 126; Dayal Singh & ors Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 26;3

State of Gujarat & anr Vs. Justice R.A Mehta & ors, (2013)1 SCC ;1 Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI & ors, (2014) 8 SCC 68;2 Dharampal

Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & ors, (2015) 8 SCC 519 ;Khoday Distilleries Limited & ors Vs. Sri

Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited , (2019) 4 SCC 376.

Shri Julius Riamei, learned Advocate for the other review petitioners has submitted that he would adopt the submissions of the learned Addl. Advocate

General and in addition thereto, it has been submitted by him that the judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 was passed by this Court in violation of the

principles of natural justice warranting interference of this Court to review it for the reason that the members of the Committee did not disclose or

inform that their children were unsuccessful candidates and that the said judgment and order was based on their report. He has relied upon the

decisions rendered in an English case, R. v. Bow Sttreet Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrtae, ex p Pinochet Ugarte, (1999) 2 WLR 272: (1999) 1

ALL ER 577 (HL), relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inP .D Dinakaran Vs. Judges Inquiry Committee, (2011) 8 SCC 380 and Rupa

Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra, (2012) 4 SCC 388.

[7.2] Combating the above submissions made by the counsels appearing for the review petitioners, it has been submitted by Shri R.K Deepak, the

learned Advocate appearing for some of the respondents that the review petitions are not maintainable for the reason that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court being conscious of the findings of the report, dismissed the SLPs filed against the judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 with reasons and

observations and that if it is reviewed by this Court, it would amount to interfering with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the review

petitioners wished to file the review petitions, the same ought to have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to review its order. Assuming

that the review petitions are maintainable, the review petitioners ought to have acted with due diligence and should have filed the review petitions

much earlier which they utterly failed. Since the Committee was to give only an objective assessment and not the subjective assessment, the members

of the Committee might not be thinking that they would disclose to the Court that their children had appeared and failed in the Preliminary

Examination. The judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 is not liable to be reviewed for the reason that it was not passed by this Court only on the

basis of the findings of the report but was passed considering all the irregularities, illegalities and the lapses on the part of the MPSC. By way of a

supplement, Smt. G. Pushpa, learned Advocate appearing for some of the respondents has submitted that the State Government which is not

aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 18-10-2019, filed the review petitions in collusion with the successful candidates for the reason

that Shri M. Rarry, the learned Addl. Advocate General who was the counsel for some of the successful candidates, filed the review petitions on

behalf of the State Government. In the CA No. 3725-53/2018 filed by the successful candidates before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of a

petition for special leave to appeal which was granted, challenging the order dated 20-11-2017 constituting the Committee, the State Government was

represented by its counsel which would show that it was aware of the order dated 12-04-2018 passed by the Hon’ble Syupreme Court. It is

nowhere pointed in the review petitions that the members of the Committee had acted bias, arbitrarily or capriciously. The review petitions ought to be

dismissed as they had been filed after more than two years from the date of constitution of the Committee, for which she has relied upon a decision

dated 03-11-2020 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sahu (dead), through LRs & ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & ors wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision in Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik( Smt.) & ors, (2006) 4 SCC 78, considered the

scope of the review petition. Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned Advocate appearing for some of the respondents has supplemented by submitting that the

filing of review petitions by the review petitioners is an attempt to re-hear the matter on merit in the form of an appeal. The review petition can be

filed on the basis of error apparent on the face of record and not on those which need to be fished out and subsequent events arisen after passing the

judgment and order are relevant only for equitable relief and not for review. The State Government has made an attempt to mislead this Court by

pleading wrong facts and blatant lie stating that some of the petitioners in WP(C) No.803 of 2016 & WP(C) No.817 of 2016 had not cleared the

Preliminary Examination; they had challenged the earlier Enqury Commission only after the dismissal thereof and that the children of the members of

the Committee had failed in the Main Examination which may amount to perjury and criminal contempt. The review petitions should be dismissed only

on the ground of giving false statement in the affidavit. The findings of the Committee will remain the same, even if the answer sheets are re-

examined and re- verified by somebody because the same are based on the records. He has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in (1980) 2 SCC 167; State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram ChandraM, /s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi,

(2005) 5 SCC 151; Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320 ;Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), SPL (Crl) Diary

No.39528 of 2018 decided on 31-08-2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The submissions made by Shri Y. Nirmolchand, Senior Advocate for

some of the respondents are similar to that of the above Advocates and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Reliance

has been placed by him in Sivakami & ors Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ors, (2018) 4 SCC 587. Similar is the case with Shri R.S Raisang, Senior

Advocate who has relied upon the decision rendered in Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 671.

[8] An objection as regards the maintainability of the review petiions has been raised by the counsel appearing for the respondents mainly on the

ground that the petition for special leave to appeal being SLP (C) Diary NO.39519/2019 with SLP(C) No.27466-68/2019 and SLP(C) No.27560-

62/2019 preferred by the successful candidates had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the judgment and order dated 18-10-

2019 had attained its finality. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Limited & ors Vs. Sri

Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, (2019) 4 SCC 37,6 it has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that since the

SLPs had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in limine, the instant review petitions are maintainable. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court while affirming and reiterating the conclusions rendered in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359,

summed up them, one of which being that if the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, ie., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave,

then the order has two implications-one, the statement of law is a declaration of a law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution and two,

whatever is stated in the order are the findings which would bind the parties. In fact, there can be no any dispute as regards the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision rendered in Khoday Distilleries (supra) and there are instances where this Court had entertained

review petitions after the SLP being dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in limine. But on perusal of the said order dated 22-11- 2019 passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the dismissal was not in limine and it was more than that because the reasons for

dismissal of the said SLPs had been given and moreover, certain observations had been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing it.

The contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General as well as that of other advocates appearing for other review petitioners appears to be

incorrect in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, the review petitions cannot be said to be maintainable.

[9] Even though the review petitions are found to be not maintainable, this Court proposes to consider the review petitions on merit, since the counsels

appearing for the parties have made their submissions on merit as well. It may be noted that the contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the

review petitioners are not unanimous except the allegation that the members of the Committee had not disclosed that their children had appeared in the

Preliminary Examination. It may further be noted that their children had failed in the Preliminary Examination, because of which they did not

participate in the Main Examination, 2016. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the members of the Committee had

failed to disclose the material facts; that they could not be said to be fair and independent; that they had played fraud on this Court and that the

appointment of the Committee was in violation of the principles of natural justice as is evident from the rejoinder. It has been submitted by Shri Julius

Riamei, learned Advocate that the judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 was passed by this Court in violation of the principles of natural justice

because the members of the Committee constituted by this Court had failed to inform the Court that their children were unsuccessful candidates in the

MCSCCE-2016. It has been stated in the review petitions filed by the successful candidates through their counsel, Shri B.R. Sharma, learned

Advocate that the act of the members of the Committee was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the rule against bias, i.e., Nemo

Judex in Causa Sua, one cannot be a judge on his own cause. Their submissions, if read together, appear to have shown their lack of understanding

the principles of natural justice. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, the principles of natural

justice are not codified law and are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and

administrative authority while making an order. The extent and application of the principles of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the

straitjacket of a rigid formula. What a particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend upon, to a great extent, on the facts

and circumstances of that case. The principles of natural justice are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Considering the materials

on record and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

instant review petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) The judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 passed by this Court had attained its finality after the petition for special leave to appeal being SLP (C)

Diary No. 39519/2019 with SLP (C) No.27466-68/2019 and SLP(C) No. 27560-62/2019, filed by the successful candidates, having been dismissed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22-11-2019 which reads as under:

“Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

Based on the report of the Commission the impugned order is passed which cannot be said to be erroneous. We find from the report of the

Commission that sufficient material is gathered through investigation in transparent manner. Illegalities committed go the root of the matter which

vitiates the entire process of the selection. Hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

The selected candidates shall be permitted to appear in the examination afresh. The objection relating to the overage should not be raised. We make it

clear that we have not commented anything with regard CBI investigation. We hope that the Manipur Public Service Commission will hold the main

examination afresh as early as possible.

Pending application (S), if any, stands disposed of accordinglyâ€​

After the perusal of the above order, this Court is of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be said to have dismissed the SLPs in

limine. It is something more than that, in the sense that the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the matter on merit and after having perused the

report of the Committee, it dismissed the SLPs with appropriate reasons. Certain observations have also been given therein. In view of the law laid

down in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (supra), the above order is binding on all the parties. If the judgment and order is reviewed by this Court as contended

by the counsels appearing for the review petitioners, the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be rendered redundant. After the SLPs

being dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the successful candidates had been removed from their respective posts by the State Government

and the MPSC had issued a Notification dated 14-08-2020 for conducting a fresh Main Examination. If the review petitioners wished to file review

petitions, they ought to have filed the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(b) The Committee consisting of two persons- one, a retired District & Sessions Judge and two, a retired IAS was constituted by this Court vide its

order dated 20-11-2017 to which neither the State Government nor the successful candidates raised any objection. On the contrary, without doing any

homework, some of the successful candidates approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a petition for special leave to appeal being SLP

(C) No. 37281-82 of 2017 questioning the validity and correctness of this Court’s order dated 20-11-2017 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

passed an order dated 11-01-2018 directing 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 confining to the answer sheets of the petitioners therein, a copy of which was forwarded to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

pursuant to its direction/ 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. Thereafter, the Committee submitted its final report on 09-07-2017, in respect of the

answer sheets of all candidates, with a large number of irregularities/ illegalities being committed by the MPSC. Since this Court’s order dated 20-

11-2017 was not quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it had been acted upon with the reports being submitted by the Committee.

The purpose of filing the review petitions by the State Government and the successful candidates is nothing but to question indirectly this Court’s

order dated 20-11-2017 by which the Committee was constituted, which they could not do so directly. In other words, it is an indirect method adopted

by the review petitioners which cannot be permitted by this Court;

(c) It may be noted that the Committee constituted by this Court is neither a statutory body nor a Commission appointed under the Commissions of

Enquiry Act, 1952 nor an investigating agency like CBI or NIA or a CID/Crime Branch which is dutybound to collect materials, record statements of

persons whose presence being relevant in respect of an incident/crime; analyse them; draw a conclusion/ finding and proceed in accordance with law

for recommendation or trial in the court. This was not the job of the Committee which is simply a fact finding body, i.e., a Committee consisting of two

private invividuals who agreed to do the job on the request of this Court and it is not a public authority. Its job was to find out, if there was any

irregularity/ error in the answer sheets of the candidates as alleged by the petitioners therein and submit a report thereof. In fact, it was the job which

should have been done by this Court but as this Court was unable to do so for want of time, the Committee was constituted to do it on behalf of this

Court and in other words, the Committee was constituted for a limited purpose as the agent/ representative of this Court;

(d) The principles of natural justice do apply only to the judicial or quasi-judicial or an administrative authority and while passing their order, they ought

to follow the principles of natural justice. In other words, the principles of natural justice will apply only to the public authorities and not to the private

individuals. As has been observed hereinabove, since the Committee constituted by this Court, was neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial nor an

administrative authority, it was not required for it to follow the principles of natural justice. In other words, its finding cannot be questioned on the

ground that it had violated the principles of natural justice. It did its duty as directed by this Court on behalf of this Court and its duty was to find out if

there was any error/ irregularity in the documents namely the answer sheets which were in the custody of the MPSC. It may further be noted that the

documents namely the answer sheets with irregularities, speak for themselves and the Committee was not required to give any opportunity of being

heard to the candidates. The contention that the members of the Committee had violated the principles of natural justice is erroneous, misconceived

and untenable. So far as this Court is concerned, the order dated 20-11-2017 was passed by this Court in the open Court and that too, in the presence

of the counsels appearing for the parties. The validity and correctness of it was questioned by the successful candidates before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court but it was not quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the contrary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after the

perusal of the report in respect of the writ petitioners, granted permission to the Committee to inspect all the answer sheets including that of the

successful candidates. Copies of the final report submitted by the Committee were furnished to the counsels appearing for the parties inviting their

response thereto, if any. Neither the State Government nor the MPSC nor the successful candidates raised any objection to the report except one

person confining to his case only. Thus, it is absolutely clear that this Court’s order dated 20-11-2017 stood acted upon. The MPSC in its affidavit

filed before this Court admitted the irregularities/ illegalities/ lapses found by the Committee and its only stand was that they could be attributed to the

human errors. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties for a long time, the judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 was passed

by this Court. Therefore, the question of violating the principles of natural justice by this Court also did not arise at all, as enough opportunities as

required in law, had been given to all the parties by this Court;

(e) The findings arrived at by the Committee were solely based on what were there in the answer sheets which were in the custody of the MPSC. No

material was placed on record before this Court either by the State Government or by the successful candidates to show that the Committee had

manipulated the answer sheets in order to favour someone or had given its findings contrary to what were there in the answer sheets. Therefore, the

allegation that the members of the Committee were bias, is misconceived and baseless. In fact, this Court was not aware of the fact that the children

of the members of the Committee had appeared and failed in the Preliminary Examination but it may be noted that they were appointed by this Court

to represent and act on behalf of this Court and moreover, they were not entrusted the task of investigation; to examine witnesses and give their

subjective opinion. They were entrusted the task of finding out the irregularities/ illegalities, if any, on the answer sheets which were in the custody of

the MPSC and therefore, the question of malafide did not arise at all. Even if the task of verification or enquiry was entrusted to any other person or

for that the State Government or the successful candidates, the findings as regards the irregularities, would remain the same except minor human error

here and there. This is quite evident from the interim report of the CBI submitted to this Court. After the SLPs being dismissed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, a case under FIR No.RC-2(A)2020 dated 31-01-2020 was registered by the CBI and before the answer sheets numbering 4567 were

seized by the CBI in accordance with law, a scrutiny/ verification as to the correctness of the findings of the Committee was done by the CBI with

the help of Assistant professors of Manipur University, NIT and the Central Agriculture University on different dates. The CBI in its report dated 08-

05-2020 observed that the same defects & irregularities as detected by the Enquuiry Committee were disclosed, when scrutiny was conducted by it

with the help of the said Assistant Professors and accordingly, it had commenced its investigation in accordance with law, the relevant paragraph of

which reads as under:

“4. That, the scrutiny of the aforesaid Answer Scripts by the Assistant Professors of MU, NIT and CAU, Imphal before effective seizure, also

disclosed the same defects & irregularities in the Answer Scripts as detected by the Enquiry Committee in their final report dtd. 09.07.2018 submitted

before this Hon’ble Courtâ€​

The role of this Court came to an end, when the judgment and order was passed by it and it is now for the CBI to investigate into the matter and if

any person is found to be criminally liable, it may proceed in accordance with law. In the event of any person being found to be not criminally liable but

found to be grossly negligent/ deliberate dereliction in the discharge of his duty, a disciplinary proceeding may be initiated by the concerned authority

against him. This Court does not express any opinion or observation in that regard and in particular, the investigation by the CBI;

[f] One of the contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the review petitioners is that the judgment and order dated 18 - 10-2019 was passed

by this Court based only on the findings of the Committee and since the members of the Committee had failed to reveal the fact that their children had

appeared in the Preliminary Examination, the said judgment and order is liable to be reviewed by this Court. It has further been submitted by them that

the members of the Committee were not fair and independent. Their contentions have no substance and merit at all. It may be noted that their children

did fail in the Preliminary Examination, as a result of which they did not participate in the Main Examination. In their report, the Committee gave no

recommendation which might influence the wisdom of this Court to pass an order in their favour or in favour of their children, rather the judgment and

order dated 18-10-2019 was aginst their interest for the reason that this Court had directed that it was open to the MPSC to conduct the Main

Examination, 2016 afresh which means that no candidates including the children of the members who failed in the Preliminary Examination, could

appear in the Main Examination at all. The expression “Main Examination 2016†has been misinterpreted by the State Government in their

rejoinder affidavit stating that the MPSC was not granted liberty by this Court to conduct examination from the stage of Main Examination, 2016. The

State Government’s attention is drawn to para 3.3 of the judgment and order dated 18-10-2019 wherein it has been observed by this Court that the

Examination, 2016 was divided into stages-one, the Preliminary Examination, 2016 and two, the Main Examination, 2016. Therefore, this Court, while

allowing the writ appeals as well as the writ petitions, made an observation, in its judgment and order dated 18-10-2019, with the expression “it is

open to the MPSC to conduct the Main Examinatiuon, 2016 afresh after due notice being given to the candidatesâ€. There is no ambiguity at all in the

said observation which has been made consciously by this Court because there was no any dispute as regards the result of the Preliminary

Examination, 2016. The said observation requires no interpretation at all by anyone;

[g] The subject matter in issue before this Court was the validity and correctness of the recruitment process conducted by the MPSC and the State

Government had no role to play in the recruitment process after the requisition being sent to the MPSC by it. In other words, the State Government is

not an aggrieved person for filing the review petitions. The action of the State Government appears to be unfair and unreasonable for the reason that

the review petitions have been filed by it at the request of the successful candidates who failed to succeed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as

is apparently evident from the averments made by it in its review petitions. The review petitions appear to be frivolous one abusing the process of law

which may invite exemplary costs. The State Government appears to have not been given proper legal advice before filing the review petitions. The

State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly, reasonably and in public interest. The expression “public interest†does not mean the

interest of the successful candidates only but it does definitely mean the interest of the public in general including that of the successful/ unsuccessful

candidates and the unemployed youths. It ought to be neutral and cannot side with one of the parties, when the public money is involved. It does not

and will not make any difference to the State Government, when “A†candidate or “B†candidate is selected and all that the State

Government’s concern is that good candidates are available with it to run the administration effectively and systematically. The first reaction of

the State Government which ought to have been and is expected, is that the Main Examination, 2016 be conducted afresh in view of the irregularities/

illegalities/ lapses found on the part of the MPSC as mentioned by this Court in its judgment and order and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No

material has been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government had ever written a letter to the MPSC expressing its anger and

dissatisfaction in the manner in which the Examination, 2016 was conducted by the MPSC. Instead of doing that and despite the irregularities/

illegalities/ lapses being detected as aforesaid, the State Government appears to have been espousing, with vigour, the cause of the successful

candidates only for the reasons best known to it. On top of that, no material has been placed on record by the successful candidates to show that since

none of them is involved as claimed by them, in any manner, in the irregularities/ illegalities being committed by the MPSC, they have approached the

appropriate forum with a suit claiming for damages/ compensation against the MPSC;

[h] As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the discovery of new and important matter or evidence can be one of the grounds for

filing a review petition. Two points underlying it, are to be noted-one, mere discovery of new fact and important matter or evidence is not enough to be

a ground because it is qualified by the expression “which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could

not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made†with the result that new fact or evidence ought to be such which

was not within the knowledge of the person concerned despite his due diligence. The expression “due diligence†is very significant and important.

In the present case, the Committee submitted its report on 09-07- 2018 and even though the review petitioners knew very well that there were

irregularties/ illegalites/ lapses on the part of the MPSC, there is no material on record to show that they made any sincere effort to know about the

details of the Committee and in particular, the State Government which did nothing about it. The successful candidates applied for furnishing

information under the RTI Act, 2005 only after they had lost their battle in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They could have done that immediately

after the report was submitted by the Committee. This fact clearly shows that the review petitioners were not diligent at all. Secondly, new fact and

important matter or evidence ought to be such on the basis of which the earlier impugned order could be reviewed and in other words, the new fact or

evidence ought to have shown that the materials on the basis of which the impugned order was passed, were incorrect warranting a review. It may be

noted that in the present case, the judgment and order dated was passed by this Court on the basis of the commulative effect of the irregularities,

illegalities and lapses on the part of the MPSC and not on the basis of the irregulaties found only in the report. It is a matter of fact that the answer

sheets are full of irregularities which can never be removed therefrom by any means including the contention that the children of the members of the

Committee had appeared and failed in the Preliminary Examination and the irregularties will continue to remain in the answer sheets, as they are.

Thus, it can be safely held that the findings of the report cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the review petitioners;

[i] A large number of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are relied upon by counsels appearing for the review petitioners as shown

in the preceding paragraph. These decisions can be broadly categorised into three groups as under:

(a) It is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. A judgment,

decree or order obtained by palying fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law.

(b) It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused.The

investing officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any

suspicion as to its genuineness. A fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing the rule of law and

maintaining proper balance in law and order.

(c) The Principles of natural justice ought to be followed by judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authority while making any order affecting the right

of a person and the non-obervance thereof is itself prejudice to him and proof of prejudice independently of the proof of denial of natural justice is

unnecessary.

There can be no and shall be no any dispute as regards the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their decisions as aforesaid and relied

upon by the counsels appearing for the review petitioners. In terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, any law declared by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court shall be binding on all the Courts in the country including this Court. If there is one decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laying

down the law which is applicable to the facts of the case, that decision is more than enough and there is no need of citing many decisions amounting to

unnesessary multiplication. Since the facts of the said cases are not identical with that of the present case, the decisions rendered therein will have no

application at all to the facts of the present case.

[10] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant review petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed with

no order as to costs.