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
| 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
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C.Muddaiah
Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi
Mangal Prasad Tamoli vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (2005) 3 SCC 422 : AIR 2005 SC 1964
Prashat Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC
Ritesh Tewari vs. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 677 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 315
Sanjay Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohaty
Sujasha Mukherji vs. High Court of Calcutta
Upen Chandra Gogoi vs. State of Assam (1998) 3 SCC 381 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 872
The court upheld the Commission’s authority to conduct a second written examination to rectify previous evaluation errors, affirming the necessity for fair recruitment practices.
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
The court upheld the authority of the examination body, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention in academic matters unless clear errors are demonstrated.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.