Supreme Court Issues Notice To Manipur Chief Secretary In Contempt Petition Over 2016 MPSC Recruitment Exams

The Supreme Court recently issued contempt notice to the Chief Secretary of Manipur-Vineet Joshi in a case filed by serving officers of the State, alleging willful disobedience of the Court's order.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol issued the notice, dispensing with the personal presence of the alleged contemnors (Joshi and Land Resources Department Secretary-Namoijam Kheda Vrata Singh) for the time being.

Briefly put, the matter pertains to the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016 conducted by Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC). The petitioners were selected and appointed as officers in the State as a result of the same.

Raising allegations regarding irregularities in the conduct of the exam, a batch of pleas were filed before the Manipur High Court. On 18.10.2019, the High Court scrapped the exam, nullified the appointments made thereunder and ordered a CBI investigation.

The High Court found the following discrepancies in the examination process to be fatal:

- Non-appointment of the Controller of Examination given the essential and extensive duties devolved upon him.

- Non-laying down the procedure for the evaluation and tabulation of answer books which consequently gave licence to the examiner to do whatever he feels like. Certainly, one examiner had taken answer sheets to his home outside Manipur for evaluation.

- Declaration of the result of Main Examination, 2016, even when the evaluation of the last subject was concluded only a day prior to such declaration. The court found it hard to believe that the scrutiny would have been carried out in few hours prior to the declaration of the result and that too, in the night.

- Moderation or scaling of marks was not adopted by the MPSC, in clear violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

- Violation of directions issued by the high court in H. Bobby Sharma v. MPSC, prescribing that the qualifying criteria for an examination should to be in conformity with the criteria fixed by UPSC.

Against the High Court's decision, the State of Manipur preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. In November, 2019, the High Court's decision to quash the exam was upheld. A bench of Justices Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna also upheld the High Court's direction to CBI to conduct a time bound investigation into the conduct of the exam.

Subsequently, new material was discovered about the breach of principles of natural justice and fraud committed. The State filed a review petition against the October 18, 2019 order. However, the same was dismissed by the High Court on December 17, 2020. Challenging this, the State again approached the Supreme Court.

On 11.02.2022, the Supreme Court declined to consider at length the grievances raised by the petitioners and/or the High Court's opinion on them. However, it directed that a fresh exam be conducted by MPSC in 4 months for those who appeared in the September, 2016 Mains exam, and the re-successful candidates be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.

"In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts", the Court said.

Statedly, the petitioners re-wrote the exam and were declared successful against the same posts as earlier. However, despite a categorical direction by the top court, the State did not grant them continuity of service and consequential benefits.

As such, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court pleading that there was willful disobedience of its order.

Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv,  Namit Saxena, AOR, Awnish Maithani, Adv., D. Bharat Kumar, Adv, Gopal Jha, AOR, Elangbam Premjit Singh, Adv., and Niraj Boby Paonam, Adv, appeared for the petitioenrs.

Case Title: LAISHRAM TARAJEET SINGH & ANR. VERSUS VINEET JOSHI & ORS., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 611-620/2024

Click here to read/download the order