Manipur High Court
Mr. Nungleppamcha Lanleiba vs The State Of Manipur on 28 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (C) No. 366 of 2023
1. Mr. Nungleppamcha Lanleiba, aged about 29 years, S/o N.
Joykumar Singh, a resident of Koirou Thongju Part II, P.O.
Manipur University (Canchipur), P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
East District, Manipur, Pin No. 795003 & 2 Ors.
2. Miss Heisnam Puspa Devi, aged about 24 years, D/o H.
Ibungo Singh, a resident of Mayang Imphal Kokchai Awang
Leikai P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795132.
3. Mr. Saihmingi Kashung, aged about 25 years, S/o Simeon
Kashung, a resident of Mary Kom Complex, National
Game Village, P.O. & P.S. Lamphelpat, Pin No. 795004.
...... PETITIONER/S
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat South Block, Babupara, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented by its Secretary, North AOC, Imphal East,
Manipur-795001.
........RESPONDENT/S
with
WP(C) No. 370 of 2023
1. Mr. Arbind Salam, aged about 40 years, S/o Salam
Shyam Chandra Singh, a resident of Ningthoukhong
Page 1
Kha Leikai, Ward No. 6, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur,
Bishnupur District, Manipur-795011.
2. Mr. Yaikhomba Yengkhom, aged about 26 years, S/o
Yengkhom Nabachandra Singh, a resident of
Khuyathong, Thangmeiband, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
3. Mr. Ganendrajit Elangbam, aged about 26 years, S/o
Elangbam Pabitra Singh, currently residing at Lamphel
Sanakeithel Quarter No. 2, Type III Block-A, P.O. &
P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
4. Mr. Khundrakpam Samanda Singh, aged about 26
years, S/o Kh. Saratchandra Singh, a resident of
Ningthoukhong Kha Leikai, ward No. 9, Bishnupur, P.O.
Ningthoukhong, P.S. Bishnupur, Manipur, Pin No.
795011.
5. Mr. Nongthombam Nganba Singh, aged about 22
years, S/o N. Inaocha Singh, a resident of Haraorou,
P.O. Pangei Yangdong, P.S. Sagolmang, Imphal East,
Manipur-795114.
........Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat South Block, Babupara, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC),
represented by its Secretary, North AOC, Imphal East,
Manipur-795001.
.......Respondents
Page 2
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner :: Mrs. G. Pushpa, Advocate in WP(C) No.
366 of 2023, Mr. K. Kishan, Ms. Girija
Jain, Ms. Ranjita and Ms. N. Tejpriya in
WP(C) No. 370 of 2023
For the respondent :: Mr. H. Debendra, Dy. A.G. for the State
and Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate for the
MPSC
Date of hearing :: 26.04.2023
Date of Judgement &
Order :: 28.04.2023
Judgement & Order (CAV)
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
[1] The petitioners in WP(C) No. 366 of 2023 and WP(C) No. 370
of 2023 have filed the present writ petitions inter-alia challenging the
notification or advertisement No. 01 of 2022 issued by the Manipur Public
Service Commission (MPSC) vide No. 7/10/2022-MPSC(DR) dated
07.12.2022. By the impugned notification No. 01 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022,
MPSC invited application for the Manipur Public Services Combined
Competitive Preliminary Examination, 2022 under the Manipur Public
Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2022 for selecting to the
main examination for recruitment to 100 nos. of vacancies for appointment
to Manipur Civil Service Grade II, Manipur Police Service Grade II, Manipur
Finance Service Grade III, Sub-Deputy Collector and Manipur Secretariat
Service Category VI.
[2] The petitioners are eligible candidates waiting to appear in the
upcoming Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination (in
Page 3
short MCSCCE), 2022 and they came to know that the MPSC is going to
conduct the aforesaid examination with the same MPSC Examination
Rules 2011 which has not been modified in accordance with the direction
passed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 18.10.2019 in WA No. 19
of 2017 and the other connected matters which attained finality. In the
aforesaid order, the Division Bench of this Court while setting aside the
Manipur Public Service Examination, 2016, the notification dated
07.04.2016 was quashed and the appointment orders of the successful
candidates were also quashed and directed to conduct MPSC Examination
afresh after due notice to the candidates.
[3] In the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of this Court
suggested to make amendments in the MPSC Examination Rules with
respect to the discrepancies pointed out. The petitioners herein apprehend
that the ensuing examination to be held in pursuance to the notification
dated 07.12.2022 will suffer from the same defects and irregularities as
occurred in the quashed MPSC Examination of 2016. In the writ petitions,
the petitioners have pointed out lacuna in Rule 26 (A) of the Manipur Public
Service Commission (Procedure & Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 as
amended on 22.06.2017, 04.06.2020, 14.06.2020 and 07.09.2020. Rule 26
(A) prescribes procedures to be followed for conducting examination,
evaluation of answer scripts and interview. It is stated that recently
concluded re-examination of MCSCCE Main Examination, 2016 (held in
2022) was conducted by MPSC under the Examination Rules, 2011 and
Page 4
several lapses, irregularities and illegalities have arose. If examination
under advertisement No. 1 of 2022 is to be conducted under the same
Rules, 2011 such illegalities, irregularities and manipulation would likely to
occur.
[4] The prayer in the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 366 and 370
of 2023 are reproduced herein below:
"WP(C) No. 366 of 2023:
i) to issue Rule nisi
ii) to quash and set aside the impugned
Advertisement No 01/2022 issued by the MPSC vide
No.7/10/2022-MPSC(DR) dated 07/12/2022 for
recruitment of various posts of MCS G-II, MPS G-II,
MFS G-III, SDC and MSS Category VI under the
Government of Manipur and its subsequent Notification
7/10/2022-MPSC(DR)/I dated 20/02/2023 issued by the
MPSC, through its Controller of Examination thereby
fixing the date Preliminary Examination on 30/04/2023
(Sunday).
(iii) to direct the MPSC to frame/amend the existing
MPSC Exam Rules with proper provisions without any
defects keeping in consideration of the Judgment and
Order passed by the Special Division Bench of the High
Court of Manipur vide Judgment and order dated
18/10/2019 passed in W.A No. 19 of 2017 and batch,
and also to direct the respondents to act in accordance
to the order dated 11.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.
312 of 2022 before conducting Manipur Civil Service
Combined Competitive Examination 2022-23, before
the conduct of the examination as per Notification dated
07/12/2022.
Or, in the alternative
iv) to pass order(s)/ direction(s) to handover the
Examination under Advt. No 01/2022 vide No.7/10/2022-
MPSC(DR) dated 07/12/2022 issued by the MPSC to the
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as the MPSC
has failed to amend the Examination Rules as per
Page 5
directives of the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur which has
attained finality
Further
v) to pass an order(s)/direction(s) to investigate into
the conduct of the erring officials of the Manipur Public
Service Commission who are involved in committing
illegalities in the Manipur Civil Service Combined
Competitive Examinations, and thereafter to
terminate/remove/dismiss from their respective Services
and to withhold such other service benefits such as
Pensionary benefits etc. in case the Manipur Civil Service
Combined Competitive Examination 2023 is conducted,
and whose involvement if any Irregularities or Illegalities
or malpractice or manipulation arise after conducting the
MCSCCE 2022 examination.
In the interim and during the pendency of the writ
Petition
vi) to stay the operation of the impugned
advertisement and its subsequent Notification dated
20/02/2023 issued by the Controller of Examination
MPSC or to direct the MPSC not to conduct the MCSCCE
2022 examination before amending the procedure and
conduct of business Rules appropriately and suitably.
WP(C) No. 370 of 2023:
i) to issue Rule nisi
ii) to quash and set aside the impugned
Advertisement No. 01/2022 issued by the MPSC vide
No.7/10/2022-MPSC(DR) dated 07/12/2022 for
recruitment of various posts of MCS G-II, MPS G-II,
MFS G-III, SDC and MSS Category VI under the
Government of Manipur and its subsequent Notification
7/10/2022-MPSC(DR)/I dated 20/02/2023 issued by the
MPSC, through its Controller of Examination thereby
fixing the date of Preliminary Examination on
30/04/2023 (Sunday).
(iii) to direct the MPSC to quash/frame/amend the
existing MPSC Exam Rules with proper provisions
without any defects keeping in consideration of the
Judgment and Order passed by the Special Division
Page 6
Bench of the High Court of Manipur vide Judgment and
order dated 18/10/2019 passed in W.A No. 19 of 2017
and batch, and also to direct the respondents to act in
accordance to the order dated 11.05.2022 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 312 of 2022 before conducting Manipur
Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination 2022-
23, before the conduct of the examination as per
Notification dated 07/12/2022.
Or, in the alternative
iv) to pass order(s)/ direction(s) to handover the
Examination under Advt. No 01/2022 vide No.7/10/2022-
MPSC(DR) dated 07/12/2022issued by the MPSC to the
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as the MPSC
has failed to amend the Examination Rules as per
directives of the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur which has
attained finality
Further
v) to pass an order(s)/direction(s) to investigate into
the conduct of the erring officials of the Manipur Public
Service Commission who are involved in committing
illegalities in the Manipur Civil Service Combined
Competitive Examinations, and thereafter to
terminate/remove/dismiss from their respective Services
and to withhold such other service benefits such as
Pensionary benefits etc. in case the Manipur Civil Service
Combined Competitive Examination 2023 is conducted,
and whose involvement if any Irregularities or Illegalities
or malpractice or manipulation arise after conducting the
MCSCCE 2022 examination.
In the interim and during the pendency of the writ
Petition
vi) to stay the operation of the impugned
advertisement and its subsequent Notification dated
20/02/2023 issued by the Controller of Examination
MPSC or to direct the MPSC not to conduct the MCSCCE
2022 examination before amending the procedure and
conduct of business Rules appropriately and suitably."
[5] Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)
No. 370 of 2023, submits that MPSC has not made necessary
Page 7
amendments in its Rule as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in
the order dated 18.10.2019 in a batch of petitions being WA No. 19 of
2017, etc. If the examination is conducted under the same defective Rule, it
would likely to repeat the illegalities and irregularities as happened in the
quashed MPSC Main Examination, 2016. He further points out that in the
OMR Sheet used by the Manipur Public Service Commission, there is no
space for signature of the Supervisor of the examination and as such, there
is scope for manipulation. He prays that at least examination be postponed
for one month so that all necessary correction in the Rules as suggested by
the Division Bench of this Court Court in WA No. 19 of 2017 and the
connected matters can be made.
[6] Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)
No. 366 of 2023, adopts the submission of Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel
for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 370 of 2023 and she relies on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2010) 13 SCC 586 at para 6
and 7 which held that adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of
functions of the Public Service Commission would result in defect not only
in the process of selection but also of the appointment to the Public Offices
which would affect the effectiveness of the administration. It is also
submitted that principle of public accountability and transparency in the
functioning of an institution is essential for its proper governance. It is
prayed that the notification be set aside and the MPSC be directed to
Page 8
amend its Rules in terms of the direction passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in WA No. 19 of 2017 and the connected matters.
[7] Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the MPSC, submits that the
writ petitions are based on mere assumptions and conjectures that there
would be irregularities and illegalities in conduct of the examination and
without any concrete pleading in this regard, the petitioners are praying for
quashing of the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and
Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 as amended on 22.05.2017,
04.05.2020, 14.08.2020 and 07.09.2020. The petitioners are not able to
show any instances of violation of any fundamental and legal rights of the
candidates by the said Rules and he submits that the writ petition is not
maintainable. It is also pointed out that the common judgment and order
dated 18.10.2019 passed in WA No. 19 of 2017 and connected matters
was challenged by the State Government and the successful terminated
candidates. The SLP No. 39519 of 2019 and connected matters before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2019
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 19 of 2017 and other
connected matters were dismissed on 22.11.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any error in the report of the
Commission appointed by this Court and directed the MPSC to hold Main
Examination afresh as early as possible. After this, the State Government
and terminated successful candidates filed 10 review petitions and by
common judgement and order dated 17.12.2022 in Review Petition Nos. 3
Page 9
to 12 of 2020, the review petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court. Against the order of Division Bench in review petitions, the State
Government and other preferred SLP (Civil) Diary No. 5680 of 2021, etc.
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 11.02.2022, the
petition was disposed of directing the MPSC to conduct the quashed Main
Examination, 2016 afresh within 4 (four) months keeping the questions of
law open.
[7.1] Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the MPSC, draws the
attention of this Court that the petitioners herein have not disclosed the
common judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed by a Single Judge
of this Court in WP(C) No. 373, 375 and 378 of 2019 wherein the
advertisement No. 1 of 2019 issued by the MPSC for recruitment of 72
posts of MCS, MPS, MFS, SDC and MSS was challenged with a prayer to
conduct the examination afresh after amending Manipur Public Service
Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 by
complying directives of Single Judge of this Court in the order dated
28.02.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 803 and 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017.
The grounds raised in the aforesaid writ petitions are similar to those raised
in the present writ petitions. Vide order dated 02.05.2022, Single Judge
dismissed the writ petitions. It is stated that the judgment and order dated
02.05.2022 has not been challenged and hence attained finality. It is
submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as the
question raised in the present writ petitions are already settled by judgment
Page 10
and order dated 02.05.2022 passed in WP(C) 373 of 2019 and other
connected matters. He prays that the writ petitions be rejected.
[7.2] Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the MPSC, relies upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Satpal Saini reported as (2017) 11 SCC 42
which held that direction to enact/amend legislation cannot be issued since
such power lies on the exclusive domain of the legislation. He further
submits that recently re-conducted Main Examination, 2016 (2022) was
conducted under the same Rules of 2011 as directed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Hence, the matter cannot be agitated again.
[8] Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. A.G. for the State respondent,
adopts the submission of Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the MPSC and
prays that the writ petitions be rejected.
[9] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on record.
[10] In the order dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C) No. 373 of 2019 and
connected matters, the Single Judge has discussed Rule 26 (A) of the
MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 and held that the
Rule has been amended and the grievances of the petitioners stand
redressed. The relevant portions are at para 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 & 64, which
are reproduced herein below:
"59. As could be seen from the records and submissions of
the learned Additional Advocate General now the Rules of
2011 has been suitably amended and the amended Rules will
Page 11
take care of the competitive examination in question. The
learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the
amended rule regarding procedure to be followed for
conducting examination, evaluation and interview as also the
evaluation of answer scripts.
60. On a reading of the amended provisions, specifically,
Rule 26(A) of the Rules of 2011, it is clear that the said
provision deals with the procedure to be followed for
conducting the examination, evaluation and interview. In view
of the above, this Court is of the view that the respondents are
to follow the procedure as laid down in the Rules of 2011
while conducting the competitive examination. Further, this
Court is also of the view that now the Controller of
Examinations has been appointed and the grievance of the
petitioners stands redressed.
61. In view of the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 11.2.2022 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.5680 of 2021
etc. batch, supra, this Court is of the view that now the
petitioners cannot raise the aforesaid arguments as narrated
infra since the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the MPSC to
conduct the main examination of MCSCC (Main) Examination,
2016 afresh within a period of four months.
62. There is no dispute that now a responsible officer is
holding the charge of Controller of Examinations, MPSC. That
apart, in view of the amendments made in the Rules of 2011,
the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned
advertisement. Since the petitioners are aggrieved persons of
the MCSCC (Main) Examination 2016 and the petitioners and
similarly situated persons have been permitted to appear in
Page 12
the main examination for MCSCCE 2016 to be conducted
pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
11.2.2022, now they have no right to challenge the impugned
advertisement dated 8.1.2019.
63. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of
the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief
sought for in the writ petitions, as their grievances have been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the
order dated 11.2.2022."
[11] MPSC issued an Advertisement No. 1 of 2019 dated
08.01.2019 for recruitment of civil servants and the said notification was
challenged by some of the aspirants by way of writ petitions being WP(C)
Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of 2019 and 378 of 2019 inter-alia on the grounds
that the notification was issued without fully complying the directions of the
Single Judge in order dated 28.02.2017 passed in WP(C) Nos. 803 of
2016, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017. Vide order dated 10.05.2019, this Court
stayed the process of the conduct of the examination as notified by Advt.
No. 1 of 2019.
[12] Vide common judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C)
Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of 2019 and 378 of 2019, Single Judge dismissed
the writ petitions by holding that amended Rule 26 (A) of the Rules of 2011
would take care of grievance of the petitioners and the Controller of
Examination was also appointed. It was also observed that the matter
attained finality as Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of all the matters in
this regard. Accordingly, MPSC was directed to conduct the examination as
Page 13
per Advt. No. 1 of 2019 in terms of the amended Rules of 2011. The order
dated 02.05.2022 has not been challenged and has attained finality.
GENESIS OF THE EVENTS IN GIST:
[13] In the first batch of petitions challenging the manner in which
the conduct of the MCSCCE Main Examination 2016 in WP(C) Nos. 803 of
2016 and 817 of 2016 filed by some of the unsuccessful candidates and
WP(C) No. 60 of 2017 questioning the finding of the Court Appointed
Enquiry Commission, Single Judge, vide common judgment and order
dated 28.02.2017, rejected the prayer for cancellation of the MCCS Main
Examination 2016. While dismissing the writ petitions, Single Judge
pointed out certain lacunae in the Manipur Public Service Commission
(Procedure & Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 specially with respect to
Rule 26A and Rule 26B and in para 68 directed MPSC "...to do the needful
in terms of the observations and directions made, more particularly in the
preceding paragraphs no. 55 to 62 as regards codification, evaluation and
other matters by laying down the guidelines/instruction so that such
allegations and irregularities which form the cause of actions for filing these
writ petitions are avoided in future and to ensure credibility of the
examination system conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission,
which exercise has to be carried out by the MPSC before holding the next
Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination and by making
amendments in the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and
Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011, wherever necessary". It may be noted
Page 14
that in these batch of writ petitions, Single Judge constituted an Enquiry
Commission which conducted a partial enquiry on the answer sheets and
did not find any patent irregularity and accordingly, the writ petitions were
dismissed.
[14] The common judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 803 of 2016 and connected
matters was challenged before the Division Bench by way of writ appeals
being WA Nos. 19 of 2017 and 29 of 2017. These writ appeals were tagged
together with a batch of writ petitions being WP(C) Nos. 606 of 2017, 727
of 2017 & 313 of 2018 inter-alia praying for quashing the MCSCCE Main
Examination 2016 due to malpractices and irregularities committed in the
conduct of the examination. The Division Bench constituted a 2 Member
Commission and directed to examine all the answer scripts and after
thorough investigation, the Commission found certain irregularities in the
conduct of Main Examination 2016. On the basis of the report submitted by
the Commission, vide common judgment and order dated 18.10.2019,
Division Bench set aside the judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 803 of 2016, 817 of 2016 and
60 of 2017 and allowed WP(C) Nos. 606 of 2017, 725 of 2017 and 313 of
2018. Consequently, the MCCS Main Examination 2016 was quashed and
the appointment orders of the successful candidates were also quashed
and set aside. In para 22, the Division Bench pointed out certain
Page 15
drawbacks in the rules and conduct of the examination. However, no
definite direction was issued in this regard.
[15] The terminated successful candidates of Main Examination
2016 and State Government challenged the judgment and order dated
18.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench quashing the examination and
appointment orders issued in pursuant to the result before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) Diary No. 39519 of 2019 and connected
matters. Vide order dated 22.11.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, did not find any infirmities in the
order of the Division Bench as the same was based on a finding of the
Commission after 'thorough investigation in transparent manner'. It was
directed to hold main examination afresh as early as possible.
[16] After dismissal of the SLPs and on discovery of certain new
facts, some of the terminated successful candidates and State Government
preferred 10 review petitions being RP Nos. 3 to 12 of 2020 against
judgement order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench quashing
the Main Examination 2016 and appointment orders. Vide order dated
17.12.2020, the Division Bench dismissed the review petitions and the
common order in review petitions was challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) Diary No. 5680 of 2021 and connected
matters. Vide order dated 11.02.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of
the batch of Special Leave Petitions with a direction to MPSC to conduct
Page 16
MCCS Main Examination 2016 afresh within 4 months leaving the
questions raised left open.
[17] Thereafter the MCSCCE Main Examination 2016 was re-
conducted in 2022 and appointment orders were issued to the successful
candidates on the basis of the result declared in the re-conducted
examination.
[18] MPSC issued an Advertisement No. 1 of 2019 dated
08.01.2019 for recruitment of civil servants and the said notification was
challenged by some of the aspirants by way of writ petitions being WP(C)
Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of 2019 and 378 of 2019 inter-alia on the grounds
that the notification was issued without fully complying the directions of the
Single Judge in order dated 28.02.2017 passed in WP(C) Nos. 803 of
2016, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017. Vide order dated 10.05.2019, a Single
Bench of this Court stayed the process of the conduct of the examination
as notified by Advt. No. 1 of 2019.
[19] Vide common judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 in WP(C)
Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of 2019 and 378 of 2019, Single Judge dismissed
the writ petitions by holding that amended Rule 26A of the Rules of 2011
would take care of grievance of the petitioners and the Controller of
Examination was also appointed. It was also observed that the matter
attained finality as Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of all the matters in
this regard. Accordingly, MPSC was directed to conduct the examination as
Page 17
per Advt. No. 1 of 2019 in terms of the amended Rules of 2011. The order
dated 02.05.2022 has not been challenged and has attained finality.
[20] Some of the aspirants filed another writ petition being WP(C)
No. 312 of 2022 on 02.05.2022 [on the day when WP(C) Nos. 373 of 2019,
375 of 2019 and 378 of 2019 were dismissed by common judgment and
order dated 02.05.2022 by Single Judge rejecting prayer for amendment in
Rules of 2011] before this Court inter-alia praying for quashing/amending
the Rules of 2011 and for conducting the proposed Main Examination
2016(2022) by UPSC or any other State Public Service Commission so as
to avoid irregularities, illegalities and manipulation cropped up in the
conduct of the examination. Vide order dated 11.05.2022, a Division Bench
of this Court observed that after the Division Bench judgment dated
18.10.2019 in WA No. 19 of 2017 & batch and judgment dated 17.12.2020
in Review Petition No. 3 of 2020 & batch, the matters attained finality and
advised the MPSC to be mindful of the observations and findings arrived
earlier.
[21] After the completion of re-conducted Main Examination
2016(2022), an application being MC(WP(C)) No. 33 of 2023 was filed in
WP(C) No. 312 of 2022, inter-alia, to amend prayer for quashing the re-
conducted Main Examination 2016(2022) as the same was held without
complying the directions of this Courts as mentioned above. Vide order
dated 13.03.2023, a Division Bench of this Court rejected the application
for amendment as it would create a new cause of action and would change
Page 18
the nature of the case. It was observed that the matter regarding Rules of
2011 attained finality after final judgment and order dated 22.05.2022
passed by Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of 2019 & 378 of
2019.
[22] Only after the dismissal of application being MC(WP(C)) No.
33 of 2023 on 13.03.2023, the present writ petitions, ie, WP(C) Nos. 366 of
2023 and 370 of 2023 were filed on 19.04.2023 and 20.04.2023 by new set
of petitioners through the same counsel who have conducted the case on
behalf of some of the unsuccessful candidates in the Main Examination
2016, raising the same issues which have attained finality. It may be noted
that Mr. K. Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 370 of
2023, was one of the petitioners/appellants in the earlier round of
litigations, i.e., in WP(C) Nos. 803 of 2016; 60 of 2017; 312 of 2019 and in
WA No. 19 of 2017. Similarly, Smt. G. Puspa, learned counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C) No. 366 of 2023 appeared in all these matters on
behalf of some of the aspirants/unsuccessful candidates in Main
Examination 2016 and in subsequent petitions seeking relief for
quashing/amending the Rules of 2011.
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:
[23] In the present writ petitions, it is quite evident that the same
have been filed on mere presumptions, assumptions and conjectures that
irregularities, illegalities, fabrication, etc. would likely to happen in the
proposed MCSCCE, 2022, as occurred in the Main Examination 2016.
Page 19
Another writ petition being WP(C) No. 312 of 2019 was also pending inter-
alia praying for quashing the Rules of 2011 and for handing over conduct of
examination to UPSC or some other authority. The reliefs prayed for in all
these petitions are substantially same.
[24] The question of the validity of the Rules of 2011 has already
been settled by the judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed by
Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of 2019 & 378
of 2019. As this order is not challenged, the finding attains finality. By the
present writ petitions filed by another set of new petitioners, the issues
which have attained finality are being re-agitated before this Court. The
plea of the petitioners that they are not parties in the earlier round of
litigations does not hold good when one of the petitioners in the earlier
litigations and one of the counsel are the counsel in the present cases.
[25] It will be apt to refer to the settled proposition of law that an
advocate is an officer of the court and has to assist in finding the truth. In
the case of D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra, (2001) 2 SCC 221,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 26 as follow:
"26. A lawyer must not hesitate in telling the court the correct
position of law when it is undisputed and admits of no exception. A
view of the law settled by the ruling of a superior court or a binding
precedent even if it does not serve the cause of his client, must be
brought to the notice of court unhesitatingly. This obligation of a
counsel flows from the confidence reposed by the court in the
counsel appearing for any of the two sides. A counsel, being an
officer of court, shall apprise the Judge with the correct position of
law whether for or against either party."
Page 20
[26] It is the settled principle of law that there should be an end to
litigation. In the case of State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12
SCC 673 at Para 68, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of
resjudicata is fundamental to the administration of justice in all courts that
there must be an to litigation and it is applicable to writ proceedings also.
Relevant para is reproduced below as:
"68. The doctrine of res judicata and Order 32 Rule 2 are not
technical rules of procedure and are fundamental to the
administration of justice in all courts that there must be an end to
litigation. Thus, when this Court was called upon in Daryao v.
State of U.P.19 to hold that res judicata could not apply in
connection with proceedings before this Court under Article 32
because of the extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction, it was said:
(AIR pp. 1461-62, para 9)
"9. But, is the rule of res judicata merely a technical rule or is it
based on high public policy? If the rule of res judicata itself
embodies a principle of public policy which in turn is an
essential part of the rule of law then the objection that the rule
cannot be invoked where fundamental rights are in question
may lose much of its validity. Now, the rule of res judicata as
indicated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no
doubt some technical aspects, for instance the rule of
constructive res judicata may be said to be technical; but the
basis on which the said rule rests is founded on
considerations of public policy. It is in the interest of the public
at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions
pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also
in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice
over with the same kind of litigation. If these two principles
form the foundation of the general rule of res judicata they
cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing
with fundamental rights in petitions filed under Article 32."
"The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of
competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of
Page 21
law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the
administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so
much emphasis."20
19. (1962) 1 SCR 574, 582, 583 : AIR 1961 SC 1457
20. Ibid., at SCR p. 584 : AIR p. 1462, para 11.
[27] In the circumstances, the writ petitions are devoid of merits: (i)
as the same are based on presumptions; (ii) the issues raised herein have
already been settled in the judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed
by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 373 of 2019, 375 of
2019 & 378 of 2019; (iii) the same have been filed after rejecting the
application for amendment of WP(C) No. 312 of 2019 vide order dated
13.03.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MC(WP(C)) No. 33
of 2023; and (iv) non-disclosure by the learned counsel for the petitioners
of the issues already settled by this Court in the writ petitions. Accordingly,
the writ petitions are dismissed. No cost.
[28] However, to allay the fear and suspicion of the petitioners, this
Court directs the Manipur Public Service Commission to make the
supervisors to sign on the left margin on the OMR sheet, irrespective of the
fact that space is provided or not for such signature.
JUDGE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
joshua
Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA MARING
MARING Date: 2023.04.28
10:52:00 +05'30'
Page 22
