IMPORTANT POINT
The finality of public examination results and the reluctance to interfere with expert decisions, as well as the absence of provisions for re-evaluation in the rules, precluded the petitioner's right to claim re-evaluation.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayers:

(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the notification dated 21.04.2014 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 insofar as it relates to the merit/recommendation list of the respondents 6 to 15 in the category of OBC (Meitei/Meetei).

(ii) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 to re-evaluate the answer scrip of the General English paper of the petitioner insofar as it relates to Question Nos.4(a)(v), 4(a)(vi), 4(c)(iii), 4(c)(iv) and 5(b)(ii) by an expert body.

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate in the General English paper.

(iv) To evaluable the main 7 (seven) papers of the petitioner.

(v) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to sit in the viva voice test/interview by holding a special viva voce test/interview only for the petitioner.

(vi) To issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to revise the merit/recommendation list in respect of OBC(M) category.

(vii) To quash

(a) The order dated 19.7.2014 insofar as in relates to the appointment of the private respondents 6, 7 and 8 as Manipur Civil Service Grade-II.

(b) The order dated 19.7.2014 insofar it relates to the appointment of private respondent Nos.9, 10 and 11 as Manipur Police Service, Grade-II.

(c) The order dated 19.7.2014 insofar as it relates to the appointment of private respondent Nos.12 and 13 as Manipur Finance Service, Grade-III.

(d) The order dated 19.7.2014 insofar as it relates to the appointment of private respondent Nos.14 and 15 as Sub-Deputy Collector.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner had applied for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2013 and the examination was held under Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010. The preliminary examination was held on 13.10.2013 and its result was declared on 31.10.2013, in which 478 candidates, including the petitioner were qualified to appear for the main written examination. The main written examination was held from 6.1.2014 to 21.1.2014 and the interview was held from 13.4.2014 to 21.04.2014. The main written examination consists of eight papers - four compulsory and four optional. The petitioner had appeared in the main written examination, which comprises of 2000 marks in the papers, namely, (1) General English Paper; (2) Essay Paper; (3) General Studies; (4) Manipur Literature; (5) Education.

2.1. On 14.12.2013, the first respondent issued a Memorandum informing all candidates that it had fixed the qualifying marks for General English paper as 40% for general category and 38% for OBC candidates. Though the petitioner performed well in the written examination, he was surprised to know that his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates of the main written examination and the result of which was declared on 26.3.2014. After conducting viva-voce, the respondents 1 and 2 published the merit list of 189 candidates on 21.4.2014. On the basis of the recommendation of the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 6 to 15 were given appointment orders.

2.2. Aggrieved by the result dated 26.3.2014, the petitioner had approached the respondents 1 and 2 for providing a copy of the answer scripts of General English and he had filed an application under RTI on 25.4.2014 to the first respondent for providing a photostate copy of the answer scripts of General English for the main written examination. After waiting for two months since filing of the RTI application, the second respondent provided the photostate copy of the answer sheets of General English on 16.7.2014, wherein the petitioner has noticed certain irregularities.

2.3. In the Essay writing Question No.1(b), the examiner awarded 40 marks at the first instance, however, subsequently, reduced to 36 marks without any authentication from the examiner. Th