SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Nelojit Mayengbam & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Manipur Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 373, 375 & 378 of 2019
Decided On : 02-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 373 of 2019; Mr. Irom Denning, Advocate, for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 375 of 2019; Mrs. G. Pushpa, Advocate, for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 378 of 2019; Mr. M. Rarry, Addl. AG, for the Respondents

Headnote:(A) Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011; Article 320 of the Constitution of India - Writ petitions filed against recruitment process alleging non-compliance with court orders and irregularities in examination procedures - The court held that proper amendments to the Rules were implemented and the role of Controller of Examinations was re-established. As the Supreme Court directed the conduct of the main examination and the issues raised were addressed by the regulations, the petitioners' grievances were rendered moot. (Paras 29, 32, 44, 62, 64)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the advertisement issued for the recruitment examination of various posts, citing failure to follow previous court directives regarding examination procedural integrity and the absence of a designated Controller of Examinations during recruitment.

Findings of Court:
The regulations were amended, and the appointment of the Controller of Examinations alleviated previously cited concerns, appearing to satisfy the directives of the Supreme Court.

Issues: The petitioners contended about the absence of proper rules governing examination procedures and the resultant irregularities impacting the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that recent amendments and the appointment of a Controller of Examinations rectified prior procedural ambiguities, freeing it of primary legal concerns raised by the petitioners, and it found adherence to the Supreme Court's directive regarding examination conduct.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to recruitment process (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prior court orders on examination rules (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. issues of evaluation invalidation and rules amendment (Para 12 , 16 , 19 , 20)
4. previous court judgment impacts current proceedings (Para 28 , 29 , 31 , 36)
5. authority must establish examination protocols (Para 37 , 54 , 60 , 61)
6. dismissal of writ petitions and judicial directives (Para 44 , 64)

JUDGMENT

1. W.P.(C) No.373 of 2019 has been filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the entire recruitment process conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission in pursuance to the advertisement No.1 of 2019, dated 8.1.2019 as the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to hold a fresh recruitment for the posts mentioned in the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 after amending the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 by fully complying with the directive of this Court order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.803 and 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017.

2. W.P.(C) No.375 of 2019 has been filed to quash the impugned advertisement No.1 of 2019, dated 8.1.2019 issued in pursuance to the Press Note dated 5.1.2019 read with Press Note dated 28.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission.

3. W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 has been filed to quash the impugned advertisement No.1 of 2019 dated 8.1.2019 issued by the Secretary, MPSC for filling up of 72 posts of MCS, MPS, MFS, SDC and MSS without laying down the Rules and Regulations for evaluation, tabulation and conduct of the examination.

4. Heard Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.373 of 2019; Mr.Irom Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.375 of 2019; Mrs.G.Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 and Mr.M.Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State as well as the Manipur Public Service Commission.

5. Since challenge to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 made in these writ petitions is one and the same, all three writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

6. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) N.373 of 2019 is that they have applied for Manipur Public Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016 for which an examination was conducted. On 28.2.2017, this Court, in a common order in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017 directed the Manipur Public Service Commission [MPSC] to amend the MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 before holding of the present examination by mentioning and highlighting the irregularities committed by the MPSC in conducting the Manipur Public Service Combined Competitive Examination, 2016. However, the MPSC without properly amending the said Rules, 2011, have issued the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 for recruitment of various posts of Civil Service under the Government of Manipur in complete violation of the order of this Court.

7. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No375 of 2019 is that he had applied for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2019 and the authority has issued e-admit card to him pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019. According to the petitioner, the impugned advertisement has been issued in violation of the directions issued in the common order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2017 and 60 of 2017.

8. Similarly, the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 is that they are the candidates, who had appeared in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 and are the candidates applied in the Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination, 2019. According to the petitioners, by the common order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016, this Court directed the respondents, especially MPSC to lay down proper rules, norms and regulations

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top