GUWAHATI: In a landmark ruling, the Manipur High Court on Friday quashed the controversial Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination of 2016 for selection to 62 posts of MCS, MPS and allied services and the consequential orders for the appointment of those declared recruited.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices Lanusungkum Jamir and Kh. Nobin Singh, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the conduct of the main examination, 2016 by Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) within three months.
The order of the division bench also quashed and set aside the February 28, 2017 order passed by a single judge bench.
“The writ petitions…are allowed and consequently, the main examination, 2016 initiated and conducted pursuant to the notification dated 07-04-2016 issued by the MPSC is quashed and set aside and further, the consequential orders dated 22-06-2017; 26-06-2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur and the order dated 23-06-2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, are quashed and set aside. However, it is open to the MPSC to conduct the main examination, 2016 afresh after due notice being given to the candidates,” the order reads.
“The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi is directed to investigate the conduct of the main examination, 2016 by the MPSC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and take appropriate action thereafter in accordance with the law.
A certified copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the CBI, New Delhi, at the earliest possible, for doing the needful in time,” the order further reads.
Earlier, 42 aspirants of the MPSC had moved the Manipur HC alleging irregularities in the selection process and seeking justice.
They alleged that the irregularities were alterations of marks without initials and in some cases, by a totally different signature.
Some tabulation sheets were found signed only by the MPSC chairman. Following RTI queries, it was found that there was no head examiner, evaluation guidelines and model answer paper.