Supreme Court Directs Manipur Public Service Commission To Conduct 2016 Main Exam Afresh Within 4 Months

The Supreme Court on Friday directed Manipur Public Service Commission ("MPSC") to conduct Manipur Public Service Commission 2016 (Main) Exam afresh within a period of 4 months from the date of order.The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar also made it clear that only those candidates (successful/unsuccessful) who had appeared in the main exam conducted in 2016 will be eligible to appear in the proposed exam.It was also directed by the Top Court that if the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of the result of the Main Exam in 2016 are successful in the re conducted Main Exam, then they would be given continuity of service & consequential benefits after being appointed against the concerned post.The directions have been issued while hearing the SLP filed by State of Manipur assailing Manipur High Court's order dated October 18, 2019 of quashing Manipur Public Service Commission 2016 (Main) exam, with directions to conduct the Main Examination, 2016 and the SLP assailing Manipur High Court's order dated December 17, 2020 of dismissing the review petitions seeking review of October 18, 2019's order."Heard counsel for the parties. In peculiar facts of the case we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the parties to abide by the following:Manipur Public Service Commission will conduct the exam of Manipur Public Service Commission 2016 (Main) Exam afresh within not later than 4 months from today. Only those candidates (successful/unsuccessful) who had appeared in the main exam conducted in 2016 will be eligible to appear in the proposed exam. In the event the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main exam conducted in September 2016 if successful in re conducted main exam would be given continuity of service & consequential benefits after being appointed against the concerned post.We make it clear that for the nature of order that we have passed we are not dilated on the grievance made in the Review Petition or SLP by concerned petitioners nor we understood to have affirmed HC's opinion on the aspects. All contentions in the SLP are left open. Petitions are disposed of with the above terms," the bench noted in its order.Submission Of CounselsNo Interference Required In Larger Public Interest : Senior Advocate Dushyant DaveAppearing for the candidates, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave assisted by Advocate Pranav Sachdeva on the aspect of preliminary objections bescheed the bench to not interfere in larger public interest and dismiss the batch of petitions."In April 2016 they issued an advertisement. On July 3 2016, Preliminary Exam was held & on July 8 results came. From 5th September to 23rd September 2016 main exams took place. On 20th Nov 2017 which is the genesis of this probe HC passed an order & appointed a committee of 2 gentlemen to look into allegations that there were large scale irregularities in the main exam. These 2 gentleman children had appeared in the Preliminary Exam & failed on July 8 2016," submitted Senior Counsel. To further substantiate his contention, Dave while drawing Court's attention to the order dated April 12, 2018 passed by the bench of Justices Kurian Joseph, Shantanagoudar & Navin Sinha and order dated November 22, 2019 passed by the bench of Justices Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna said that the State of Manipur did not challenge the interim order at any stage.Referring to the SLP filed by the MPSC, Senior Counsel while emphasizing the fact that the party which was actually aggrieved had withdrawn the SLP said, "Your lordships had issued limited notice on the issue with regards to the investigation by CBI which was withdrawn by the Commission."Earlier State Never Raised An Objection; Abuse Of Process Of Law: Advocate Prashant BhushanAppearing for the Candidates, Advocate Prashant Bhushan while referring to the counter affidavit filed by MPSC submitted that the findings that were arrived at by the second committee were based on the answer sheets which were with MPSC. In this regard, Bhushan contended that the Commission was fully aware as to who were the members of the committee who had failed in the exam and had participated.Emphasizing on the State never raising an objection earlier, Bhushan said that the SLP was an abuse of the process of law.In The Report, Clerical Issues Have Been Pointed Out & Not Of Illegality. Report Is Factually Biased: Solicitor General Tushar MehtaSolicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the State of Manipur raised objections with regards to setting aside the entire exam based on the report of the second commission. He further argued that when some of the affected candidates preferred RTI to find out the credentials of the two members of the second Commission, they found out that 2 children of 1 member and 1 child of other members had appeared and failed in preliminary examination."When the entire exam is set aside based upon a report prepared by 2 members who...

Supreme Court Directs Manipur Public Service Commission To Conduct 2016 Main Exam Afresh Within 4 Months

Shruti Kakkar

Tags