Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Moirangthem Rishikanta Meitei & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 306 of 2019
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Mandamus - Recruitment Dispute - RTI Act - Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts - Special Viva-Voce Test - [ASI Recruitment] - [RTI Act, 2005, Section 18(1)] - The judgment discusses the petitioners' request for a writ of mandamus to declare them as successful candidates in the written test for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Manipur Police Department and to conduct a special viva-voce test. The court directed the respondents to re-evaluate the answers of the petitioners and conduct a special viva-voce test if the petitioners scored the cut-off marks, based on the principles established in previous similar cases. The court also emphasized the importance of considering subsequent developments in a case and the duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare them as successful candidates in the written test for the post of ASI and to conduct a special viva-voce test. They alleged irregularities in the evaluation of their answer scripts and sought relief based on subsequent developments in their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to re-evaluate the answers of the petitioners and conduct a special viva-voce test if the petitioners scored the cut-off marks, based on the principles established in previous similar cases. The court emphasized the duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the evaluation of the petitioners' answer scripts, the conduct of a special viva-voce test, and the duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that subsequent developments in a case, such as the re-evaluation of answer scripts, should be considered and that authorities have a duty to consider representations from aggrieved persons. The court also applied the principles established in previous similar cases to provide relief to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to re-evaluate the answers of the petitioners and conduct a special viva-voce test if the petitioners scored the cut-off marks, based on the principles established in previous similar cases. The court emphasized the duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioners as successful candidates in the written test for the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department conducted on 19.12.2012 and further to direct the respondents to conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the petitioners as done in the case of other similarly situated persons.
2. Brief facts are as follows:
(i) The Government of Manipur issued notification dated 24.4.2010 for filling the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Male) comprising of 112 vacancies through direct recruitment. The method of selection specified for that of Physical Efficient Test (PET) carrying 20 marks; written test of 60 marks and viva-voce of 20 marks and also that a candidate who passed PET will be eligible for written test and if written test is passed, then will be eligible for viva-voce. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and the chest numbers of the petitioners are 433/1E and 1579/1E respectively. After being qualified for the PET, the petitioners had appeared for the written test. But to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, when the result of the written test was notified on 25.2.2013, the petitioners could not find their names in the list of candidates who have been qualified in the written test.
(ii) Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed application under RTI Act seeking information as to their marks in the written exam. The Special DGP vide letter dated 9.4.2013 informed the Special Secretary (Home) that the Police Department is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Since the said RTI information was not furnished to the petitioners, they have filed W.P.(C) No.685 of 2013 praying for quashing the letter dated 9.4.2013 and to direct the respondents to produce the answer script of the petitioners. By the order dated 4.10.2013, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to give the required information sought by the petitioners.
(iii) Thereafter, the State Government preferred Review Petition No.30 of 2013 for reviewing the said order dated 4.10.2013 and by the order dated 13.11.2013, the review petition was allowed with a direction to furnish the marks secured by the petitioners in the written exam within one month. The selection process was over by declaration of the result on 3.4.2014.
(iv) On 29.3.2014, the Special DGP furnished the petitioners their written exam marks and from the said information, the first petitioner got 26 1/2 marks and the second petitioner got 27 marks. Being unsatisfied, the petitioners have preferred another RTI application on 25.4.2014 praying for inspection of the answer script of the written test. Since information was not furnished to them, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.47 of 2015 and the same was withdrawn on 20.5.2015 as the Chief Information Commissioner was appointed and appropriate form was available.
(v) Thereafter, the petitioners preferred their complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act to the Chief Information Commissioner on 2.7.2015. On 31.8.2015, the Special DGP informed the petitioners that the Manipur Police Department exempted from the purview of the RTI Act.
(vi) In August 2016, the petitioners came to know that in one RTI reply addressed to R.K.Prabir Singh, the Special Secretary (Home) furnished the information with regard to marks tabulation of the selected candidates. On perusal of the said marks scored by the selected candidates, the petitioners came to know that even a candidate who scored just 20 marks in the written exam were called for viva-voce and the petitioners who secured 26 1/2 and 27 marks respectively in the written exam were not called for viva-voce.
(vii) In one of the similar case i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014 and 376 of 214, the petitioners therein scored higher marks than others who were cal
The duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons and the importance of considering subsequent developments in a case.
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....
Selection into Judicial Service – Disclosure of marks in main examination before it is finalised and viva-voce conducted, would be against principles of transparency, rather it will invite criticism ....
The court held that delay in filing a writ petition does not bar relief if the cause of action arises from new information, such as a report indicating errors in examination answers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to intervene in cases of illegal, mala fide, or arbitrary exercise of power and discretion by State authorities, and to grant equ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's intervention to correct the illegal and arbitrary alteration of marks in the answer scripts, ensuring the petitioner's entitlement to r....
Participation in the selection process without raising objections precludes subsequent challenges. Substantial evidence is required to prove mala fides.
Participating in the selection process without raising objections creates a bar of waiver, and allegations of mala-fides require credible proof.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
