Manipur Civil Services Examination: Supreme Court Orders Re-Verification of Answer Scripts

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 12, 2018, addressed the issue of irregularities in the Manipur Civil Services (MCS) examination conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC). The case involved an appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court of Manipur, which directed the re-verification of answer scripts of all candidates who appeared for the examination.

Background of the Case

The appellants, led by Tongbram Bimolchand Singh, challenged the High Court’s directive to re-verify all answer scripts, arguing that the process should be limited only to those candidates who had specifically approached the court. On November 20, 2017, the High Court ordered the re-verification of all answer sheets from the MPSC-conducted selection process.

The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that the order was excessive and that the inquiry should not extend to candidates who had not raised any grievances. In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court, on January 11, 2018, issued an order limiting the scope of re-verification only to the answer scripts of candidates who had filed petitions in the High Court.

Findings of the Committee

Subsequently, a Committee was appointed to examine the matter. The Committee’s findings revealed significant irregularities in the evaluation of the answer sheets. Based on the report, the Supreme Court issued another order on March 23, 2018:

“The High Court of Manipur has forwarded a report of the Committee, which conducted verification of the answer sheets of the petitioners. It is reported that there have been quite a few irregularities. If that be so, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors prays that in view of the report of the Committee, re-verification may be conducted in respect of other candidates, since the total number of candidates are only 1068.”

This development led to a reconsideration of the scope of the re-verification process, as the irregularities identified raised concerns about the overall integrity of the examination.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioners argued that the High Court’s decision to conduct a comprehensive re-verification was justified, given the Committee’s findings of discrepancies. They contended that limiting the verification only to those who approached the court would undermine the principles of fairness and transparency in the recruitment process.

Arguments by the Respondents

The State of Manipur, represented by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and the MPSC, represented by senior counsel V. Giri, argued that a blanket re-verification was unnecessary and could lead to unwarranted delays in the recruitment process. The appellants, represented by senior counsel Debel Kumar Banerjee, maintained that the scope of the verification should be restricted to the original petitioners.

However, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the intervenors, emphasized that the Committee had already found irregularities and, therefore, a full re-verification was essential to uphold the credibility of the examination.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, considering the Committee’s report and the arguments presented, ruled that the re-verification process should proceed as directed by the High Court. The Court stated:

“Having regard to the indications in the Report of the Committee, we are of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the process, as directed by the High Court, should not be disturbed.”

The Supreme Court directed the Committee to complete the verification process within six weeks and submit its report to the High Court. It also clarified that it had not examined the appeals on merits and left the final decision on the matter to the High Court.

Conclusion

The ruling reaffirmed the need for transparency and accountability in public service examinations. The Supreme Court’s decision ensured that fairness was upheld in the recruitment process, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar allegations of irregularities in government examinations.

Petitioner Name: Tongbram Bimolchand Singh and Others.
Respondent Name: Yumlembam Surjit Singh and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Manipur.
Judgment Date: 11-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Tongbram Bimolchand vs Yumlembam Surjit Sin Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category