Shri Moirangthem Rishikanta ... vs The State Of Manipur
2022 Latest Caselaw 55 Mani

                                                                              Page |1

JOHN Digitally signed
      by JOHN TELEN
      KOM
TELEN Date:
      2022.02.22
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                               AT IMPHAL

KOM 13:07:38
      +05'30'                              WP(C) No. 306 of 2019

                        1. Shri Moirangthem Rishikanta Meitei, aged about 34
                           years, S/O M. Iboyaima Singh of Wangkhei Angom
                           Leikai, Imphal East District, Manipur.

                        2. Shri Yumnam Manaoba, aged about 21 years, S/o (L)
                           Y. Budhichandra Singh, a resident of Bamon Leikai
                           Thangjam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
                           District, Manipur.

                                                                ...PETITIONERS

                                                -Versus-

                        1. The State of Manipur, through the Principal Secretary
                           (Home), Government of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur-
                           795001.

                        2. The Director General of Police, Government of
                           Manipur, Imphal, Manipur-795001.

                        3. The Director, Manipur Police Training College,
                           Pangei,        Manipur-Cum-Chairman        Selection
                           Committee of recruitment of Asst. Sub-Inspector of
                           Police in Pursuance to requisition notification dated
                           24-04-2010, PIN-795114.

                                                                    ... RESPONDENTS

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |2

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, GA

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 01.02.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 21.02.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

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

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |3

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

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |4

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 ½

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.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |5

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 ½ and 27 marks respectively in the

written exam were not called for viva-voce.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |6

(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 called

for interview. But they were not called for viva-

voce and by the order dated 24.7.2015, the writ

petitions were disposed of with a direction to the

respondents to conduct a special viva-voce test

for the two petitioners within a period of one

month. The order of this Court has been complied

with and the respondents appointed the

petitioners therein on 11.5.2016 and 30.8.2016

respectively to the post of Sub-Inspector.

(viii) In the same situation, one Purnachand Singh filed

W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016, wherein also a direction

was given for conducting special viva-voce.

Thereafter, Purnachand Singh got appointment.

On 2.4.2019, the petitioners have preferred

application to the DGP, Manipur for conducting a

special viva-voce test as they scored higher

marks in the written exam than the other

candidates called for interview.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |7

(ix) The concerned authority had not included the

names of the petitioners in the list of successful

candidates despite the fact that the petitioners

had scored 26 ½ and 27 marks respectively in the

written exam. Upon such irregularities of the

authorities, the petitioners were not called for

viva-voce.

(x) Similarly situated persons filed W.P.(C) No.376

and 760 of 2014 praying inter alia for directing the

authority to declare the petitioners in the said writ

petitioner as successful candidates in the written

test and to conduct the viva-voce. This Court

granted the relief sought for in the said writ

petitioner and the petitioners therein have also

joined the service in the Manipur police

Department.

(xi) On 2.4.2019 the petitioners have submitted a

representation to consider them in the light of the

orders passed in the writ petitions (supra). Since

the representation of the petitioners has not been

considered, the petitioners have filed the writ

petition.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |8

3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition

stating that the selection process was over by declaration of the

result on 3.4.2014. The petitioners' marks in the written exam are

higher than 109 selected candidates, who were called for viva-voce.

The 109 candidates belong to reserved category of SC/ST and the

petitioners belong to OBC/Unreserved candidates whose pass

marks for written test of ASI is - 28 marks for Unreserved and OBC

and 20 marks for SC/ST. The petitioners failed to secure qualifying

marks for ASI written exam.

4. It is stated that the petitioners were ASI candidates,

whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 are

Sub-Inspector candidates and the written exam was different.

Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016 is also SI

candidate. They are on a different footings and the pattern of

written exam is also different. Pursuant to the order passed in

W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014, the State Government decided

to conduct special viva-voce test. However, in the instant case no

such decision has been taken to conduct special viva-voce test as

the petitioners have failed to score the required marks. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 Page |9

5. The petitioners filed a rejoinder stating that in order to

know the correct and true picture of their marks, they have filed RTI

application and since the information sought by the petitioners was

not furnished, they have preferred appeal under Section 9(1) of the

RTI Act to the Chief Secretary (Home). However, the first appellate

authority informed the petitioners that the Manipur Police

Department is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Being

aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred second appeals before

the State Information Commission being Appeal Case Nos.113 and

114 of 2019 and the said appeals were disposed of on 9.7.2020

after the Manipur Police Department gave a copy of the answer

scripts of the petitioners, including the page of answers to question

Nos.7 and 8 of the first petitioner. After the petitioners examined

their answer script, it was found that they were not given marks for

correct answers and where half should have been given by the

examiner, no marks were allotted to them. The marks which the first

petitioner should get is 26 marks plus 2 ¼ marks and that will be 28

¼ marks that is above the cut off for passing the written exam.

Likewise, the marks which the second petitioner should get is 27

marks plus 2 ½ marks and that will be 29 ½ marks that is above the

cut off for passing the written exam. In view of the above, the

petitioners ought to have been called for special viva-voce as has

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 10

been done in the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014

and 376 of 2014 by applying the same ratio decidendi in the

present case.

6. Respondents 2 and 3 filed reply to the rejoinder stating

that no roving enquiry can be done for re-assessment of the answer

script of the petitioners. The answer script of the second petitioner

has been in the custody of the RTI authority, as such, the

respondents 2 and 3 may be permitted to file a separate reply in

respect of the second petitioner.

7. Heard Mr.Th.Khagemba, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned Government

Advocate for the respondents State.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

pursuant to the notification dated 24.4.2010, the petitioners applied

for the recruitment of ASI and after being qualified for the PET, they

had appeared for the written test. But when the result of the said

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. He would submit that in order to know the marks in the

written test, the petitioners field applications on 6.3.2013 and

7.3.2013 respectively under the RTI Act. Since no information was

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 11

furnished, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.685 of 2013 and this

Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents to

furnish the marks secured by them. As per the information, the first

petitioner secured 26 ½ marks and the second petitioner secured

27 marks.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that in the month of August, 2016 the petitioners came across one

RTI reply dated 25.7.2015, wherein the mark tabulation secured by

selected candidates in PET, written test and viva-voce was

provided. On a perusal of the said RTI reply, it was seen that a

number of candidates who secured lesser marks than the

petitioners were called for viva-voce. Thereafter, the petitioners

have filed the writ petition for direction to the respondents to declare

the petitioners as successful candidates in the written test for the

post of ASI in the Manipur Police Department conducted on

19.12.2012 and further direct the respondents to conduct special

viva-voce test for the petitioners in the light of the orders passed in

W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014, 376 of 2014 and 818 of 2016

respectively.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that

the respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit stating that the cut off marks

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 12

for the general candidates is 28 marks and as such, the petitioners

were not called for viva-voce. When the petitioners preferred an RTI

application on 20.9.2019, thereby asking the authorities to furnish

their answer script of the written test, the answer scripts were

provided to them after the State Information Commission directed

the Manipur Police Department to furnish the same. On a perusal of

the answer scripts, the petitioners saw that a number of answers

were not allotted marks properly and even correct answers were

cross marked. Arguing so and highlighting the question and the

answer script of certain questions for which no mark was allotted

and even the correct answers were cross marked, learned counsel

for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition may be disposed

of by directing the respondents to re-evaluate the answers of the

petitioners in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.163 of

2009 and further direct the respondents that if such reevaluation the

petitioners found to have scored the cut off marks, then a special

viva-voce test be conducted for the petitioners for the post of ASI by

applying the ratio of W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.818

of 2016 within a time frame.

11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondent State contended that the selection process for

the post of ASI was completed by declaration of results on 3.4.2014

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 13

itself and that the petitioners belong to OBC/Unreserved candidates

whose pass mark for written test is 28 marks. However, the

petitioners secured qualifying marks for ASI in the written test 26 ½

(first petitioner) and 27 (second petitioner) respectively.

12. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that

the orders in the cases of W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014 and 376 of

2014 referred by the petitioners were relate to the recruitment to the

post of Sub-Inspector and the written test for the said post is

different. As such equality cannot be claimed against unequals.

Similarly, the order in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016 referred by the

petitioners relates to Sub-Inspector candidates and the same is on

different footing and the written test patterns are also different.

13. As far as the marks not allotted and cross marked for

certain questions canvassed by the petitioners, learned

Government Advocate submitted that the evaluating authority has

rightly evaluated the marks and there is no flaw in it.

14. Learned Government Advocate lastly submitted that

no roving enquiry can be done for re-assessment of answer script

of the petitioners and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 14

15. This Court considered the rival submissions made by

the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

16. The grievance of the petitioners is that after filing the

writ petition, they have been provided with copy of the answer

scripts pursuant to the direction dated 9.7.2020 given by the State

Information Commission in the second appeals being Appeal Case

Nos.113 and 114 of 2019 preferred by the petitioners. As per the

earlier RTI information furnished to the petitioners, the first

petitioner secured 26 marks and the second petitioner secured 27

marks in the written test. After obtaining the answer scripts and

upon perusal thereof, the petitioners find that the first petitioner will

get 2 ¼ marks in addition to 26 marks which he has already

secured. Similarly, the second petitioner will get 2 ½ marks in

addition to 27 marks which he has already secured. Thus, adding

the aforesaid additional marks, the first petitioner would secure 28

¼ marks and the second petitioner would secure 29 ½ marks,

which are higher than the cut off marks fixed for Unreserved and

OBC candidates i.e. 28 marks.

17. In support of the claim made by the petitioners in the

writ petition qua non-awarding of marks to certain questions and

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 15

cross mark put to certain questions, the petitioners highlighted the

following questions:

"For Petitioner No.1:

In respect of Question No.2(ii) Name the founders of the following religions:-

(a) Jainism and (b) Judaism (One mark) The first petitioner wrote (a) Mahavira and (b) Profet Moses and it was marked correct by the examiner, but gave only ¾ marks instead of one mark. So ¼ markshould be added to make it one full mark.

In respect of Question No.4(i) Where was the last Asian Games held? What was India's position in the medal tally table?

The first petitioner wrote "the last Asian Games was held in Chine and the position of India in the medal tally table is in 6 position". The said answer was marked correct, but instead of one full mark, he was given only ½ mark. So ½ mark should be added to make it one full mark. In respect of question No.4(ii) To whom are the following awards given:- (a) Golden Boot (b) Golden Ball, Name the last recipients of these and to which country do they belong to?

The first petitioner wrote (a) Thomas Muller of Germany (b) Deigo Forlan of Uruguay, the answer (a) and (b) is a correct answer, but only ¼ mark is given to the first petitioner instead of full one mark. So ¼ mark should be added to make it ½ mark.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 16

In respect of question No.5(iii) Name two malnutrition diseases for the children.

The first petitioner wrote the two malnutrition diseases of Children are (a) kwashiorkor (b) Marasumuss and the first petitioner was only given ½ mark and he should have been given ¼ mark altogether for spelling of Marasumuss as have been given for answer to question No.5(iv) and 6(i). In respect of question No.7(ii) i.e. given the verb of Memory The first petitioner wrote Memorise which is a correct answer but it was marked as wrong answer. He should have been given ½ mark for that answer. Memorise is British English which is the correct answer.

As such the marks which the first petitioner should get is 26 marks + 2 ¼ marks (½ + ¼ + ½ + ¼ + ¼ + ½ = 2 ¼ ) and that will be 28 ¼ marks that is above the cut off/qualifying mark for passing the written exam.

For Petitioner No.2:

In respect of Question No.1(i) Name any two major winds of the Earth.

The second petitioner wrote Trades Wind and Westerlies Wind which is a correct answer, but he was given only ¾ mark for just adding 's' in the trade wind. In respect of Question No.1(ii) Name the largest States of India area wise and population wise.

The second petitioner wrote State wise Rajasthan, Population wise Uttar Pradesh. Both the answers are correct answers, but he was given only ½ mark and Rajasthan was marked wrong. The second petitioner should have been given full one mark by adding another ½ mark.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 17

In respect of Question No.2(ii) Name the founders of the following religions (a) Jainism and (b) Judaism The second petitioner wrote Jainism - Jain Mahavira, Judaism - Moses Both the answers were ticked as correct answers, but he was given only ½ mark instead of full one mark. He should get another ½ mark to make it as one full mark. In respect of Question No.3 (iii) Name the two International Airports of Eastern India.

The second petitioner wrote Kolkata and Mumbai Kolkata was marked as correct answer, but he was given only ¼ mark instead of ½ mark.

In respect of Question No.4(ii) To whom are the following awards given: (a) Golden Boot (b) Golden Ball Name the last recipients of these and to which countries do they belong to?

The second petitioner wrote Thomas Muller (Uruguay) and Diego Forland (Uruguay). Thomas Muller is a correct answer, but no marks was given to the petitioner. He should atleast be given ½ mark for the said answer.

In respect of Question No.6(iv) Name the languages spoken in the following States:- (a) Kerala (b) Andhra Pradesh The second petitioner wrote (a) Malayalam (b) Telugu. Both the answers are correct answers, but the Telugu was marked as wrong answer and he was given only ½ instead of full one mark by adding another ½ mark.

As such the marks which the second petitioner should get is 27 mark + 2½ marks (½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ = 2 ½) and that will be 29 ½ marks that is above the cut off/qualifying marks for passing the written exam."

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 18

Thus, in view of the above i.e. the first petitioner should get 28 ½ marks and the second petitioner should get 29 ½ marks, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for direction on the respondents to call for special viva-voce as has been done in similar matters.

On the other hand, the respondents denied the awarding of marks as claimed by the petitioners and stated as under: "The first petitioner wrote his answer in Question No.2(ii)(a) "The founder of Jainism is Mahavira". However, the correct answer is to be "The founder of Jainism is Mahavira" i.e. the spelling of Jainism was wrong written by the petitioner resulting ¼ marks was deducted for spelling mistake. The first petitioner wrote his answer in Question No.4(i) "The last Asian Games was held in China and the position of India in the medal tally table is in 6 position". The correct answer is "The last Asian Games was held in China and the position of India in the medal tally table was in 6th position". The first petitioner did not write Question No.4(ii) in his answer. However, the examiner gave ¼ mark. Hence, this ¼ mark is supposed to be deducted.

The first petitioner wrote his answer in Question No.5(iii) "The two malnutrition diseases of children are 'Kwashiorkor

(b) Marasumuss'. The correct answer are Kwashiorkor and Marasmus i.e. spelling of Marasmus was written wrongly and ½ mark was deducted."

18. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is the

say of the respondent State that the answer script has been in

custody of RTI authority.

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 19

19. As stated supra, the aforesaid information came to the

knowledge of the petitioners only after the filing of the writ petition

when the Manipur Police Department gave copy of the answer

scripts pursuant to the direction of the State Information

Commission passed in Appeal Case Nos.113 and 114 of 2019

dated 09.7.2020. In fact, in the year 2013 itself, the petitioners have

asked for answer scripts. However, for one reason or the other, the

answer scripts have not been furnished to the petitioners by the

authorities concerned and finally, the same was provided to the

petitioners in the year 2020.

20. While filing affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition,

the respondents 2 and 3 stated that petitioners failed to secure

qualifying marks for ASI written test i.e. 26 ½ marks was secured by

the first petitioner and 27 marks by the second petitioner. The cut

off for Unreserved and OBCs, in which category the petitioners

applied, is 28 marks. Now the petitioners claim that the first

petitioner should be given 28 ¼ marks and the second petitioner

should be given 29 ½ marks. Though the respondent State

contended that the claim now made by the petitioners is not

supported by any material, equally, the respondent State has also

failed to substantiate their case by producing documentary proof.

Along with the rejoinder to the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioners

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 20

have produced the question and answer which they have obtained

under RTI Act. On a perusal of the same, prima facie, this Court is

of the view that there is substance in the claim now made by the

petitioners.

21. At this stage, learned Government Advocate

contended that the selection process was over and the result was

announced on 03.4.2014 itself and no roving enquiry can be

ordered for re-assessment of the answer script of the petitioners.

The aforesaid argument of learned Government Advocate cannot

be countenanced.

22. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that if

subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, certain developments

take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a

party, such subsequent events cannot be disregarded.

23. In Seshambal (dead) through LRs v. Chelur

Corporation Chelur Building and others, (2010) 3 SCC 47, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"17. While it is true that the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date suit or the legal proceedings were instituted, it is equally true that if subsequent to the filing of the suit, certain

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 21

developments take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration. What the court in such a situation is expected to do is to examine the impact of the said subsequent development on the right to relief claimed by a party and, if necessary, mould the relief suitably so that the same is tailored to the situation that obtains on the date of relief is actually granted."

24. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir

B.Goyal, (20020 2 SCC 256, where it has been held that although

the ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand

crystallized on the date of the institution of the suit, yet the Court

has power to mould the relief in case the following three conditions

are satisfied:

"11. ... (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted;

(ii) that taking note of such subsequent even tor changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 22

(iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise."

25. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the subsequent

development is that the petitioners 1 and 2 will be getting 28 ¼

marks and 29 ½ marks respectively, for which, it would be

appropriate to direct re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the

petitioners in accordance with law.

26. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of

Ningthoujam Devdas Singh v. The State of Manipur and others,

(W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009, decided on 17.12.2013) held as under:

"Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the authorities would be required to re-evaluate the answers given by the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and if it is found that the petitioner has secured more marks than any of the successful candidates who have been appointed, the petitioner would also be entitled to be included in the Select List for the purpose of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police."

27. In view of the above, this court is of the firm opinion

that by re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioners, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondent State and, on the

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 23

other hand, if re-evaluation is done and if the petitioners obtain

more marks, it would be very much helpful to them to get selected

for the post in question.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when

similar cases were filed before this Court, being W.P.(C) Nos.376

and 760 of 2014, praying inter alia for directing the respondent

authorities therein to declare the petitioners therein as successful

candidates in the written test and to conduct viva-voce test, this

Court was pleased to grant similar reliefs as sought for in the

instant writ petition.

29. Countering the said argument of learned counsel for

the petitioners, learned Government Advocate submitted that the

petitioners here were ASI candidates and the candidates involved

in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 were SI candidates and also

the written tests were different. Therefore, the petitioners cannot

claim equality. The argument of learned Government Advocate

cannot be countenanced for the reason that the principle for

selection is same, whether it is for ASI or SI.

30. By the order dated 24.7.2015, the Hon'ble First Bench,

in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 held as under:

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 24

"Heard Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 and Mr.M.Hemchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.376 of 2014 as well as Mr.Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Advocate Genera, Manipur appearing for the State respondents.

The prayer in both the writ petitioners is for quashing the entire selection solely on the ground that even though both the petitioners in both the writ petitions have secured more marks than others, who were called for interview, they were never called for interview. The learned Advocate General, on verification of records, submits that the allegations made by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions were not called for interview and now the State Government has decided to conduct 'special viva-voce test' for both the petitioners in two writ petitions.

In view of the above, nothing remains to be decided in these two writ petitions. We, therefore, dispose of these two writ petitions directing the State respondents to conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the two petitioners in both the writ petitions within a period of two-months from to-day.

W.P.(C) No.376 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 stand disposed of."

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 25

31. It is also pertinent to point out that in W.P.No.818 of

2016, decided on 15.05.2017 (Chongtham Purnachand Singh v.

State of Manipur and others), this Court, by following the orders

passed in W.P.(C) Nos.376 and 760 of 2014, held as under:

"Heard Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Addl. GA for the State respondents.

Mr.Mohendro, learned counsel submits that at the time of declaring the result, the petitioner was not aware of the marks secured by him. In the meantime, the Division Bench of this Court did dispose of 2 (two) writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.376 of 20114 on 24.07.2015 wherein this Court recorded the submissions of the learned Advocate General to the effect that the State Government had decided to hold 'special Viva Voce test' for both the petitioners in these two writ petitions.

After this order dated 24.07.2015 having been passed by this Court, the petitioners applied for information under the RTI and in response thereto, the authorities furnished information which are annexed at Page/41 in the present writ petition and indicates that the petitioner secured 26 ¾ /60.

Accordingly, on 24.04.2016 when the matter was came up for consideration, Mr.A.Mohendro, learned

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 26

counsel submitted that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.7.2015 to which Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Addl. GA prayed for two (two) weeks' time for seeking instruction from the Administrative Department.

Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Addl GA submits that he has not yet received the instruction.

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall examine whether the petitioner has really secured 26 ¾ out of 60 marks and whether the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and if found correct, the State Government shall conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the petitioner.

The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 (four) weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

32. In the instant case also, the petitioners applied for

information under RTI and in response thereto, the authorities

furnished information which were produced before this Court by the

petitioners to show that the first petitioner secured 28 ¼ marks in

the written exam. Similarly, the second petitioner secured 29 ½

marks in the written exam. In such circumstances, as stated supra,

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 27

no prejudice would be caused to the respondent State, if the writ

petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to examine

whether the petitioners have really secured 28 ¼ and 29 ½ marks

respectively in the written exam conducted for ASI and whether the

petitioners' case is covered by the decision of this Court dated

24.07.2015 and if found correct, the respondent State shall conduct

'special viva-voce test' for the petitioners. That apart, the aforesaid

direction would also meet the ends of justice.

33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that on 2.4.2019,

the petitioners have submitted a representation to consider the

case of the petitioners in the light of the orders of this Court dated

24.07.2015 and 15.05.2017 respectively. Admittedly, the

respondent State has not considered the said representation of the

petitioner till date. If an aggrieved person submits a representation

to the authorities, it is the bounden duty of the authorities to

consider the representation and communicate a decision to him.

However, in the case on hand, as stated supra, the respondent

State failed to consider and pass orders on the representation of

the petitioners dated 2.4.2019 till date. Since the respondent State

failed to consider their representation, the petitioners have filed the

instant writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is also to consider

the representation of the petitioners dated 2.4.2019 in the light of

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019 P a g e | 28

the decisions of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and 15.05.2017

respectively. Therefore, as stated supra, if the writ petition is

disposed of with the direction to the respondent State, no harm or

loss would cause to them.

34. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is

disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The respondents are directed to re-evaluate the

answers of the petitioners in the light of the

order passed in W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009,

decided on 17.12.2013.

(ii) If upon such re-evaluation, the petitioners are

found to have scored the cut off marks, then a

'special viva-voce test' be conducted or called

for the petitioners for the post of Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police by applying the ratio in

W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014, decided on

24.07.2015 and in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016,

decided on 15.05.2017.

(iii) The aforesaid exercise is directed to be

completed within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               (iv)     No costs.




WP(C) No. 306 of 2019
                                                             P a g e | 29

35. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both

the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

WP(C) No. 306 of 2019