Manipur High Court
Yumlembam Sanathoi vs State Of Manipur And Another on 4 November, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILA SHAMURAILATPAM
TPAM SUSHIL SUSHIL SHARMA Sl. Nos. 1-11
Date: 2025.11.04
SHARMA 22:30:08 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 53 of 2025
Yumlembam Sanathoi
Appellant
Vs.
State of Manipur and another
Respondents
Clubbed With MC(WA) No. 108 of 2025
With MC(WA) No. 109 of 2025
with MC(WA) No. 111 of 2025
With MC(WA) No. 112 of 2025
With MC(WA) No. 113 of 2025
With MC(WA) No. 114 of 2025
With WA No. 51 of 2025
With WA No. 54 of 2025
With WA No. 55 of 2025
With WA No. 56 of 2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
04.11.2025
[1] Advertisement No. 01/2022 dated 07.12.2022 issued by
'Manipur Public Service Commission' ('MPSC' for the sake of brevity) is the
genesis of the captioned matters and this Advertisement shall be referred to
as 'said Advertisement' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
[2] Before proceeding further, this Court makes it clear that this
common order will govern the captioned 5 (five) main 'Writ Appeals' ('WAs'
in plural and 'WA' in singular for the sake of convenience) and the captioned
1|Page
'Miscellaneous Cases' thereat ('MCs' in plural and 'MC' in singular for the sake
of convenience and clarity).
[3] In and vide said Advertisement, MPSC invited applications from
eligible candidates qua 'Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination
2022' (hereinafter, 'said examination' for the sake of convenience) under
'Manipur Public Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2022'
('said Rules' for the sake of brevity) for selecting candidates for Main
Examination for recruitment to 5 posts/services, namely, Manipur Civil
Services Grade -II, Manipur Police Service Grade II, Manipur Finance Service
Grade-III, Sub Deputy Collector and Manipur Secretariat Service Category-
VI. Along with said Advertisement, what is known as 'Plan of Examination'
was also published.
[4] From the Plan of Examination, it comes to light that the afore-
referred said examination is a preliminary examination, it consists of two
papers (General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II) both of
objective type (multiple choice) questions and carry a maximum of 400
marks qua various subjects details of which have been set out in the said
Advertisement. It was made clear that this Preliminary Examination is meant
to serve as a screening test only and therefore, the marks obtained in the
Preliminary Examination i.e., said examination by the candidates who are
declared as qualified for admission to the main examination will not be
counted for determining their final order of merit.
2|Page
[5] Be that as it may, what is more relevant is, it was made clear
that MPSC will first draw a list of candidates based on the criterion of
minimum qualifying 33% marks in one of the two papers which constitutes
the Preliminary Examination i.e., said examination namely, General Studies
Paper-II, to be noted, the Preliminary Examination for 400 marks is
constituted by two papers namely General Studies Paper-I (GS Paper-I) and
General Studies Paper-II (GS Paper-II), each paper is for 200 marks, while
GS Paper-I has 100 questions carrying 2 marks for each question, GS Paper-
II contains 80 questions carrying 2.5 marks per question. It was also made
clear that there will be four alternatives (answers) for every question and in
case of a wrong answer, one third (0.33) of the marks assigned to that
question will be deducted as penalty. It was also made clear that candidates
giving more than one answer will also be treated as wrong answer . This in
effect means that a candidate should necessarily score 33% in GS Paper-II
to qualify. To put it differently, if a candidate secures less than 33% in GS
Paper-II, the candidate will not qualify. It is also to be noted that those
candidates who get more than 33% in GS Paper-II will be arranged in the
order of merit based on their score in GS Paper-I alone and as many as 12-
13 times of the number of vacancies would be number of candidates who
would be called for the Main Examination. In the instant case, it is clear from
said advertisement that the number of vacancies is 100 (posts) and therefore
the number of candidates who would qualify for Main Examination is 1200-
1300. There is no disputation or contestation about this being the Plan of
Examination.
3|Page
[6] This Court is informed that as many as 10,333
candidates/aspirants sat for the afore-referred Preliminary Examination i.e.,
said examination which was held on 30.04.2023. This Court is also informed
that from and out of this 10,333 candidates, 3417 candidates qualified by
getting more than 33% in GS Paper-II. As already alluded to supra, from
and out of these 3417 candidates, a list was prepared by arranging the
candidates in the order of marks which they had secured in GS Paper-I and
this is a total of 1308 candidates. To be noted, the number of candidates for
Main Examination will be 12-13 times the number of vacancies as already
adverted to. It is also informed that last 8 candidates scored same mark
and 1 differently abled candidate has been considered, making the total
selected candidates as 1308. As regards these details captured here, the
same were furnished to this Court pursuant to proceedings/order made by
this Court in the listing on 31.10.2025 and there will be a little more allusion
about this infra elsewhere in this order.
[7] Reverting to the narrative, on the same day as that of the
Preliminary Examination (said examination) i.e., 30.04.2023, (obviously after
the said examination, i.e., Preliminary Examination) MPSC published the Key
Answers for all the 180 questions in the two papers put together and invited
objections from the candidates which had to be given in the period between
05.05.2023 and 10.05.2023. Thereafter, there was a Notification dated
09.05.2023 wherein this time for objections was extended followed by
another Notification dated 25.09.2023 further extending the time for
Notification. There is a third extension Notification dated 27.09.2023 which
4|Page
says that the time for objections will be extended after the Mobile/Internet
ban is lifted. To be noted, there was a Mobile/Internet ban during the
relevant point of time in Manipur. On 13.02.2024, another Notification was
issued extending the time for objections and extended time period was
14.02.2024 to 18.02.2024. It is to be noted that this 13.02.2024 Notification
extending the time for objections was after lifting of the ban of
Mobile/Internet services in the State of Manipur. After 13.02.2024 also, there
was one more Notification i.e, a Notification dated 05.03.2024 extending the
period for objections from 06.03.2024 to 08.03.2024.
[8] Various objections from various candidates qua the Key
Answers published by MPSC on 30.04.20223 were received. The details of
the appellants before this Court who objected may not be of great
significance in the light of the narrative which is to follow infra.
[9] After receipt of objections, MPSC constituted an independent
Eight Members External Subject Expert Committee and referred the
objections to this Eight Members Expert Committee and after obtaining
opinion from the Eight Members Expert Committee on each of the objections
and after deliberating on the same, the results were declared on 28.05.2024
and along with the results, final Key Answers (post reference to the experts)
was also published. In this regard, it is to be noted that acting on the opinion
of the Eight Members Expert Committee, MPSC revised one question,
dropped six questions as regards GS Paper-I and one question was dropped
as regards GS Paper-II before the results were published on 28.05.2024.
There is also no disputation or contestation that with regard to this one
5|Page
revised, seven dropped questions, grace marks were given to all the
candidates. This Court is informed that grace marks necessarily means the
full marks for those questions and addition of negative marking, if any, for
a given candidate. In other words, grace mark is constituted by full mark for
the concerned question as well as negative mark, if any, for a given
candidate.
[10] After the results were declared on 28.05.2024, some of the
candidates resorted to Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for
convenience), submitted representations and certain queries were raised. It
may not be necessary to advert to the same as the same may not be really
germane to the instant order, i.e., it may not be germane or imperative for
appreciating the instant order. Suffice to say that one writ petition, namely
W.P. (C) No. 497 of 2024 was filed on 25.07.2024. In this writ petition, there
were 5 writ petitioners and these 5 writ petitioners are 5 appellants before
us in captioned W.A. No. 51 of 2025. Be that as it may, in this writ petition
being W.P. (C) No. 497 of 2024, inter alia, three mandamus prayers were
made. One mandamus prayer was to mandamus MPSC to constitute an
Expert Committee and re-determine the correct answer for the questions
with regard to which writ petitioners raised an issue. To be noted, in this
writ petition, writ petitioners raised an issue with regard to 'Question No. 31'
in GS Paper-II. The second mandamus was to re-evaluate the answer scripts
based on the report of the Expert Committee and the third mandamus was
to direct MPSC to publish the results of petitioners post re-evaluation of the
answer scripts in the aforesaid manner. In this writ petition, on 29.07.2024
6|Page
an interim order was made by a Hon'ble Single Judge and this interim order
permitted writ petitioners to update of the details of the 5 writ petitioners in
the website of MPSC for appearing in the Main Examination, making it clear
that the candidature of the petitioners is subject to the outcome of the writ
petition. In this regard, it is also to be noted that this interim order made by
one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma) and all the learned
counsel before us on both sides made it clear that they have no objection in
captioned writ appeals being heard by this Bench.
[11] Thereafter, seven more writ petitions were filed before the
Hon'ble Single Bench. This makes it eight writ petitions in all. In these eight
writ petitions there are 19 writ petitioners and 9 out of these 19 writ
petitioners, are now appellants before us. Be that as it may, all the eight writ
petitions came to be dismissed by a 'common judgment dated 09.10.2025
made by a Hon'ble Single Judge' ('impugned order' for convenience).
Assailing the impugned order, 9 of the 19 writ petitioners have filed the 5
captioned writ appeals.
[12] Before proceeding further, as regards the prayers in the writ
petitions, it is necessary for completion of facts, to make it clear that in W.P.
(C) No. 681 of 2024 (out of which captioned W.A. No. 54 of 2025 arises),
the lone writ petitioner had made a fourth mandamus prayer and the same
pertains to declaration of results pertaining to candidates who had given
answers pursuant to the Expert Committee (opinion) which was sought to
be constituted. As already mentioned, this is only for completion of facts.
7|Page
[13] When the first of the captioned writ appeals, namely, W.A. No.
51 of 2025 was listed in the admission board in this Court on 29.10.2025,
notice was issued and this 29.10.2025 proceedings/order reads as follows:
'[1] A common judgment dated 09.10.2025 in 8 (eight) writ petitions is
nucleus of the captioned intra-court appeal i.e. WA No. 51 of 2025. The details of
the 8 (eight) writ petitions and the writ petitioners thereat are as follows :
1. Md. Sher Khan, S/o Md. Zahiruddin, aged about 32 years, R/o
Lilong Heinou Makhong, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District: Thoubal,
Manipur, Pin Code - 795130.
2. Maxwin Wangkheimayum, S/o W. John Singh, aged about 26
years, R/o Wangkhei Amu Leirak Opposite Meihoubam Lampak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Pin Code - 795005, Manipur.
3. Herojeet Singh Shougrakpam, S/o Shougrakpam
Kunjakishwar Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o Santhong Sabal
Leikai, Ward No. 7, Kwakta Gram Panchayat, P.O. & P.S.
Moirang, Pin Code - 795133, Manipur.
4. Ningthoujam Roshnikumar Singh, S/o Ningthoujam Mangi
Singh, aged about 36 years, R/o Bishnupur Makha Leikai, Ward
No. 6, Near Vishnu Temple, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur Police, Pin
Code - 795126, Manipur.
5. Moirangthem Gautam Singh, S/o (Late) Moirangthem
Joykumar Singh, aged about 43 years, R/o Uripok Gopalji
Leirak, Imphal West, Pin Code - 795011, Manipur.
... Petitioners
Yumlembam Sanathoi, S/o Yumlembam Jitkumar Singh, aged
about 39 years, R/o Keishamthong Maning Longjam Leikai,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
Miss Bidyaluxmi Huidrom, aged about 26 years, D/o Binod
Huidrom of Khagempali Huidrom Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
8|Page
Robert Salam, S/o Salam Dhiren Meitei, aged about 34 years, R/o
Singjamei Chinga Mathak Yumnam Leikai, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
1. Monika Chingakham, D/o Ch. Merajao Singh, aged about 31,
R/o Nambol Khajiri Mamang Leikai, Nambol Municipal Council,
Imphal West, Manipur - 795134.
2. Hidangmayum Ronendra Sharma, S/o Hidangmayum
Sanamacha Sharma, aged about 31 years, R/o Naoremthong
Khumanthem Leikai, Imphal West, Manipur -795001.
3. Nongthombam Sanju Singh, S/o Nongthombam Motihar Singh,
aged about 29 years, R/o Kongba Nandeibam Leikai, Imphal
East, Manipur - 795008.
4. Moirangthem Chinglenkhomba Singh, S/o Moirangthem
Gunendra Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Kongba
Nongthombam Leikai, Imphal East, Manipur - 795008.
5. Akham Chinglemba Meitei, S/o Akham Iboyaima Khuman,
aged about 24 years, R/o Wangkhei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal
Awang Leirak, Imphal Municipal Council, Manipur - 795005.
6. Wairakpam Momocha Singh, C/o Wairakpam Tolpishak Singh,
aged about 27 years, R/o Ningthoukhong Awang Khunou, Near
Community Hall, Ward No. 1, Bishnupur District, Manipur -
795126.
7. Longjam Suraj Singh, S/o Longjam Liken Singh, aged about 26
years, R/o Bishnupur Ward No. 9, Bishnupur District, Manipur -
795126.
8. Chongtham Ronilkumar Singh, S/o Chongtham Priyokumar
Singh, aged about 27, R/o Uripok Polem Leikai, Imphal West,
Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioners
Angom Amarjit Singh, S/o Late Angom Saratchandra Singh, aged
about 43 years, R/o Ningthoukhong Awang Khunou, Ward No. 1,
Bishnupur Sub-Division, Bishnupur, Manipur - 795126.
... Petitioner
9|Page
Sanabam Micheal Singh, aged about 34 years, S/o Sanabam
Manglemjao Singh of Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
... Petitioner
Ringo Pebam, aged about 45 years, S/o Pebam Sunarchand, R/o
Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner'
[2] State of Manipur and Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) are
respondents 1 and 2 respectively in all the 8 (eight) writ petitions.
[3] Captioned writ appeal arises out of WP(C) No. 497 of 2024 where
there are 5 (five) writ petitioners as would be evident from the details culled out
and set out supra, as regards the remaining 7 (seven) writ petitions, in one writ
petition there are 8 (eight) writ petitioners and in the other 6 (six) writ petitions
there is 1 (one) writ petitioner each. This makes it 19 (nineteen) writ petitioners in
all qua the common judgment which is under challenge.
[4] MPSC issued an Advertisement dated 07.12.2022 inviting applicants
from aspirants qua Manipur Civil Service Grade-II, Manipur, Manipur Police Service
Grade-II, Manipur Finance Service Grade-III, Sub Deputy Collector, Manipur
Secretariat Service Category-VI. Preliminary examination was conducted on
30.04.2023. To be noted, what we are concerned with is, one of the papers namely,
General Studies (Paper-II) and Question No. 31 thereat.
[5] Learned senior counsel Mr. Tayenjam Momo Singh appearing on
behalf of Ms. Ningthoujam Diana Devi, counsel on record for the appellants
submitted that the closet answer would be 'Assail : Defend' and not 'Disease :
Treatment' qua 'ACTION : REACTION'. It was also contended that this question is
a straight lift off from CAT 1996 and CLAT 2013. In CAT 1996 and CLAT 2013,
'Assail : Defend' was the correct answer is learned senior counsel's further say.
[6] Issue notice.
[7] Ms. H. Roji, learned counsel, accepts notice for R1 and Mr. M. Rarry,
learned senior counsel appears on her behalf. Mr. L. Disney Meetei, learned
counsel, accepts notice for R2 and Mr. RK Deepak, learned senior counsel appears
on his behalf.
[8] Learned senior counsel for MPSC, on instructions, submitted that
Question No. 31 is not a straight lift off from CAT 1996 and CLAT 2013 as in CAT
1996 and CLAT 2013 one of the options is 'Diseased : Treatment' whereas in the
MPSC (instant Exam) it has been changed as 'Disease : Treatment' and this to test
the examinees/candidates.
[9] Be that as it may, we are informed by the counsel on record Ms.
Ningthoujam Diana Devi appearing on behalf of the appellants that some other writ
petitioners have also filed intra-court appeals and the same are scheduled to come
10 | P a g e
up tomorrow and she will inform the counsel concerned. Let the counsel concerned
bring it on board tomorrow.
[10] List captioned matter tomorrow.
[11] List on 30.10.2025.'
[14] Thereafter, the other 4 writ appeals were filed and following
29.10.2025 order in W.A. No. 51 of 2025, notice was issued in the other writ
appeals also.
[15] In the captioned writ appeals, Mr. S. Biswajit, Sr. Advocate,
appears on behalf of Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel on record for
appellants in W.A. No. 55 of 2025 & W.A. No. 56 of 2025; Mr. T. Momo, Sr.
Advocate, appears on behalf of Ms. N. Diana, learned counsel on record for
appellants in W.A. No. 51 of 2025, W.A. No. 53 of 2025 & W.A. No. 54 of
2025; Mr. M. Rarry, Sr. Advocate, appears on behalf of Ms. H. Roji, learned
counsel on record for State; and Dr. RK Deepak, Sr. Advocate, appears on
behalf of Mr. Disney Meetei, learned counsel on record for MPSC. Learned
Sr. Advocates on instructions from their respective counsel on record
consented to have the main WAs heard out without insisting on filing counter
affidavit/s in the MCs thereat. On this basis, the main WAs were taken up
and heard out. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate and pertinent to
record that this Court is informed that the Main Examination is scheduled to
commence on 07.11.2025 (Friday).
[16] A careful perusal of the impugned order, submissions made
before this Court, the case files and the other material bring to light that
what falls for consideration or in other words what fell for consideration
11 | P a g e
before the Hon'ble Single Judge is eight questions in all. They are question
Nos. 31, 51 & 61 in GS Paper-II, and Question Nos. 9, 25, 50, 67 and 89 in
GS Paper-I. Given the Plan of Examination, we will first examine the three
Questions in GS Paper-II as scoring 33% in this paper is the first hurdle
which a candidate has to clear if he/she is to find a place in 1308 candidates
who will sit for main examination. As regards the three Questions in GS
Paper-II, the contention of the candidates and the Key Answers given by
MPSC post referring to Expert Panel (as can be culled out from impugned
order) is as follows:
'[10] The claims and objections raised by the petitioners in respect
of the aforesaid three questions of General Studies (Paper-II), i.e.,
Question Nos. 31, 51 and 61, are more or less the same which are as
under:-
a) In respect of Question No. 31:
(i) The final answer key given by the MPSC for the said Question
No. 31 is option "(C) Disease : Treatment", which is not closest
to relationship between capitalized pair, i.e., "ACTION :
REACTION". It has been submitted that the correct answer to the
said question is option "(B) Assail : Defend", which is closest to
relationship between the capitalized pair, i.e., "ACTION :
REACTION".
(ii) The said correct answer "(B) Assail : Defend" to the said
question is the same as the question which was asked in the CAT,
1996 and CLAT, 2013 question papers. The explanation given for
the answer (B) in CAT, 1996 and CLAT, 2013 are:-
Questions Correct Answer Explanation
given in "Hints &
Solutions/
Explanation"
Question No. 344 CAT, 1996 (B) Assail : Defend Second word is a
follow-up of first
ACTION : REACTION
one. Reaction
(A) Introvert : Extrovert comes after
(B) Assail : Defend action and Assail
(C) Diseased : Treatment (attack) is
(D) Death : Rebirth followed by
Defence.
Question No. 1 CLAT, 2013 (B) Assail : Defend Second is the
result of first
ACTION : REACTION
12 | P a g e
(A) Introvert : Extrovert
(B) Assail : Defend
(C) Diseased : Treatment
(D) Death : Rebirth
(iii) Similar question is found in the online portal
"interviewmania.com" and the correct answer to the said
question is also option 'B' as extracted above.
b) In respect of Question No. 51:
(i) The answer key given by the MPSC is option (D), however, all the
options are interpersonal skills. Hence, none of the options are
correct. If any one option which is least closest to interpersonal
skill is Empathy or option (B) reason
being Empathy is more associated with feeling which is
intrapersonal in approach even if there is some interpersonal
expression. While Assertiveness is more about communicating
in a positive and more confident way, which is more interpersonal
in approach. Hence, the more appropriate option is "Empathy"
or option (B) or none of the options are correct. In support of such
claims/ objections, the petitioners relied upon the definition and
explanation of the word "Assertiveness" as published in the
"International Journal of Advanced Psychiatric Nursing,
2021" and "Think India" (Quarterly Journal).
(ii) The petitioners also relied on the "Curriculum and Guidelines
for Life Skills (Jeevan Kaushal) 2.0", published by University
Grants Commission, August 2023 wherein it is stated that life
skills are considered into three categories with complement,
supplement and reinforce each other:
Social or Interpersonal Skills (Communication,
Assertiveness, Cooperation and Empathy).
The petitioners also relied on "Exploring the Interplay
of Assertiveness, Social Anxiety and Communication
Competence Among College Students in Lunglei, Mizoram"
published by the International Journal of Indian Psychology,
Volume 12, Issue 2, April-June 2024 wherein it is stated that
"Assertiveness is an important component of personal and
interpersonal interaction". The petitioner also relied upon the
extract from "Social Processes and Behavioural Issues -
Interpersonal Skill and Group Processes" published by
IGNOU School of Management Studies, January 2018 in support
of their contentions. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that all the options given to the said Question No. 51
are of interpersonal skills and therefore, the question is
demonstrably wrong
c) In respect of Question No. 61:
13 | P a g e
It has been stated by the petitioners that the option presented by
the MPSC as answer for Question No. 61 will be wrong since the
second para of the question is asking for negative answer of the
statement which will be options (b), (c), and (d) instead of the
MPSC option (a). It has also been stated that the said question is
almost the same with Question No. 49 of XAT, 2010 except for the
word "strongly" is replaced by the word "wrongly". This
substantive change completely alter the meaning of the question
and that the term "strongly" implies a forceful or assertive
expression, which is not inherently negative whereas the word
"wrongly" denotes an incorrect or inappropriate action, which
carries a clearly negative connotation and as such, the answer key
does not reflect the question.
[17] As regards afore-referred three questions, all three questions
were referred to the Expert Committee (Eight Members Expert Committee),
the Eight Members Expert Committee has returned its opinion and it is based
on the opinion of the Eight Members Expert Committee that the final Key
Answers were published.
[18] Before we proceed further, it is deemed appropriate to record
that as regards the five questions in GS Paper-I, while three questions,
namely Question Nos. 25, 50 & 67 were referred to the Expert Committee
and the opinion of the Expert Committee was obtained, two questions
namely, Question Nos. 9 & 89 were not referred to the Expert Committee as
at that given point of time, there was no objection with regard to Question
Nos. 9 & 89 but Question Nos. 9 & 89 have been put in issue, by writ
petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 802 of 2024, out of which W.A. No. 56 of 2025
arises. We will deal with W.A. No. 56 of 2025 alone separately for this reason
and as the lone appellant therein alone has scored more than 33% in GS
14 | P a g e
Paper-II unlike the other 8 appellants who have not secured 33% in GS
Paper-II.
[19] Reverting to the aforesaid three questions GS Paper-II, the
point is fairly simple, though multiple case laws were pressed into service by
both sides as would be evident from the impugned order of the Hon'ble
Single Judge.
[20] This Court, respectfully refers to principles laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 rendered by a Hon'ble two
member Bench on 11.12.2017, Rishal & ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission & ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 which was
also rendered by Honble Two Member Bench on 03.05.2018 and Vikesh
Kumar Gupta & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in (2021)
2 SCC 309 rendered by Hon'ble Three Member Bench on 07.12.2020. A
careful perusal of the ratio in these three case laws, namely, Ran Vijay
Singh, Rishal and Vikesh Kumar Gupta bring to light the following two
points and they are as follows;
(i) Assessment of questions by Courts itself (in matters
of this nature) to arrive at correct answers is not
permissible.
(ii) Courts should be very slow in interfering with the
Expert Committee opinion in academic matters (in
matters of this nature).
15 | P a g e
[21] This Court finds the afore-referred ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court as can be discerned from Ran Vijay Singh, Rishal and
Vikesh Kumar Gupta instructive as regards legal drill at hand the above
would be the touch stone qua dispositive reasoning in instant order.
[22] In the case on hand, as would be evident from the narrative
thus far, MPSC has referred all the three questions in GS Paper-II to an
independent, external Eight Members Expert Committee, obtained their
opinion and thereafter published the final answers along with the results
on 28.05.2023. At the risk of repetition, this Court deems it appropriate to
reiterate that post opinion of the Expert Committee, one question was
revised and six questions were dropped from GS Paper-I and one
question was dropped from GS Paper-II giving grace marks to all
candidates for all these questions. This is emphasized only for the limited
purpose of highlighting that the Expert Committee has given negative
opinion. MPSC has acted on the negative opinion of the Expert
Committee resulting in revision/dropping of certain questions. The Expert
Committee has not cleared all the questions and key answers given by
MPSC namely, all the questions and answers for which objections were
raised. To be noted, there were 180 questions and key answers for all
and objections were raised for many.
[23] Reverting to the Expert Committee, this Court permitted
MPSC to place before it the details of the Eight Members Expert
Committee in a Sealed Envelope in and by proceedings/order dated
03.11.2025, which reads as follows:
16 | P a g e
'[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings
made in the previous listing on 31.10.2025.
[2] Today, Mr. RK Deepak, learned senior counsel, continued and concluded his
submissions. Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel fairly submitted that the State
is proforma party.
[3] Mr. L. Disney Meetei, counsel on record for MPSC was instructed by Mr. Kh.
Lalmani Singh, Controller of Examinations, MPSC and made requests for a short
accommodation to place on record the affidavit of the Controller of
Examinations, MPSC giving the details of 8 (eight) member expert committee
inter alia setting out name, institution and the designation of each of the
member.
[4] This Special Bench will sit tomorrow at half past ten.
[5] List tomorrow (04.11.2025) at half past ten as 'Part Heard' for affidavit and
reply submissions of learned senior counsel for appellants.'
[24] In this regard, as regards the sealed envelope/sealed cover
procedure, declaration of law was made by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh reported in
AIR 1961 SC 493. In Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, Hon'ble Supreme Court
made it clear that when privilege/immunity is claimed by State as regards
some documents generally an affidavit should be sworn to by the political
Head of the Department concerned and if not, by the Secretary of the
Department, who is the Departmental Head and when such an affidavit is
sworn to, the affidavit should show that each document has been carefully
read and considered and the person making the affidavit is satisfied that its
disclosure would lead to public injury. The affidavit should indicate briefly
within permissible limits the reason why it is apprehended that their
disclosure would lead to public injury but these requirements did not come
17 | P a g e
into play in the case on hand as learned senior counsel appearing for learned
counsel on record for the appellants very fairly took the position that it may
not be desirable to insist that all the Names, Designations and Institutions
of the Members of the Expert Committee should be put in public domain.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the fair stand taken by
learned senior counsel on behalf of counsel on record for the appellants. The
reason is that the Final Examination/Main Examination is yet to be conducted
and the Experts may be referred to at any future point of time. It may not
be desirable to make academicians vulnerable to the legal drill on hand.
Suffice to say that the procedure put in place with regard to sealed cover in
Sodhi Sukhdev Singh has become unnecessary in the case on hand owing
to the fair stand taken by both sides. In a case where there is contest, Sodhi
Sukhdev Singh will be adverted to.
[25] This Court had the benefit of perusing the list of Eight Members
Expert Committee. This Court finds that they are clearly domain experts with
expertise in various fields, they are all academicians who hold high offices in
institutions of repute. What is of greater significance is none of them are
from Manipur. All the experts are from other parts of the country i.e., other
than Manipur, such as West Bengal, New Delhi, Puducherry etc. The experts
have given unanimous opinion and it is based on the unanimous opinion of
the experts, that MPSC has published the final Key Answers after revising
one question and dropping seven questions. The experts have given logical
reasoning and have given narrative form opinion which was made available
both to the Hon'ble Single Bench and to this Court. Hon'ble Single Bench in
18 | P a g e
the impugned order has extensively reproduced the opinion of the Expert
Committee. This Court also had the benefit of perusing the opinion of the
Expert Committee. This Court respectfully follows the principle discerned
Ran Vijay Singh, Rishal and Vikash Kumar Gupta supra that it would
be very slow in interfering with the opinion of the experts. In the case on
hand, it is seen that the experts are domain experts in various fields holding
high offices in institutions of repute and this Court would not serve as an
appellate forum qua the opinion rendered by the experts.
[26] This takes us to the question of two out of the five questions
appearing in GS Paper-I, not being referred to the Expert Committee about
which there is reference supra. In the impugned order, the Hon'ble Single
Judge has made a tabulation of all eight questions which fell for
consideration and there are five columns in the Y axis, namely, serial
number, case details, challenged questions, claimed options and final answer
key. To be noted, claimed option in column 2 in Y axis is the option which
has been resorted to by the candidates who raised the objections. Final key
answers which were published by the MPSC on 28.05.2024 post receipt of
expert opinion (after consultation with the expert committee) is in last
column. In other words, columns 4 and 5 in Y Axis in the tabulation are the
objections of the candidates in the final key answers of the MPSC and column
5 is final key answer published by MPSC post expert committee consultation.
This Court finds that the tabulation made by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the
impugned order can be usefully referred to and an extract of the same is as
follows :
19 | P a g e
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
1. WP(C) No. Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
497 of 2024 Q. 31 of GS - II
Md. Sher
Direction (Q. Nos. 29 to 32): (B) (C)
Khan & 4 ors.
In each of the following
questions a pair of capitalised
words is followed by four pairs
of words. You are required to
mark as the answer the pair of
words with a relationship
between them that is closest to
the relationship between the
capitalised pair:
Q. 31. ACTION: REACTION
(A) Introvert : Extrovert
(B) Assail : Defend
(C) Disease : Treatment
(D) Death : Rebirth
2. WP(C) No. 546 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.51 of G.S. - II
Y. Sanathoi
Q.51. Which of the following is (B) (D)
not an interpersonal skill? Or, no
option is
(A) Communication
correct
(B) Empathy
(C) Negotiation
(D) Assertiveness
3. WP(C) No. 607 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.61 and Q. 51 of GS-II
Bidyaluxmi
Q.61. "The sum of behaviour is Incorrect (A)
Huidrom
to retain a man's dignity question
without intruding upon the (Must
liberty of others", stated Sir allot
Francis Bacon. If this is the grace
marks)
case, then not intruding upon
another's liberty is
impossible.
The conclusion wrongly implied
by the author from out of Sir
Francis Bacon's statement is:
(A) Retaining one's dignity is
impossible without intruding
upon other's liability.
(B) Dignity and liberty can
co-exist.
(C) There is always the
possibility of a 'dignified
intrusion'.
20 | P a g e
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
(D) Retaining dignity never
involves intrusion into
others' liberty.
(B) (D)
Q.51. of GS-II
4. WP(C) No. 618 Correctness of answer key
of 2024 w.r.t. Q. 31 of GS - II
Robert Salam
Q.31 of GS - II (B) (C)
5. WP(C) No. 636 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.31, Q. 51 and Q. 61 of GS - II
Monika Ch. &
Q.31. of GS - II (B) (C)
7 ors.
Q.51. of GS - II All the (D)
above
options
Q.61. of GS - II B), (C), (A)
(D)
6. WP(C) No. 681 Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
of 2024 Q.67 of GS-I and Q. 31 of GS-II
Angom
Q.67 of GS-1
Amarjit
Which of the following are key Revised (D)
indicators of poverty in India? option
from (C)
a) High infant mortality rate
to (D) is
b) Low life expectancy
incorrect
c) High Inflation rate
d) Low literacy rate
(A) (a), (b) and (c) only
(B) (a), (b) and (d) only
(C) (b), (c) and (d) only
(D) (a) and (d)
Q.31 of GS - II (B) (C)
7. WP(C) No. Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
710 of 2024
Q.31, 51 and 61 of GS - II
Sanabam
Micheal Q.51. of GS - II (B) (D)
Q.61. of GS - II ... (A)
Q.31. of GS - II ...
No reason given for alleged
wrong/ incorrect answer.
8. WP(C) No. Correctness of answer key w.r.t.
802 of 2024 Q.9, 25, 50, 67, 89 of GS-I
Q.9: In the light of the recent No (C)
report released by the correct
Official Language option,
Committee headed by
21 | P a g e
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
Union Home Minister, hence
Government of India, invalid
consider the following
statements:
a) Divide the States into two
categories ----Region A and
B States, for the use of Hindi
language.
b) Prioritize regional languages
over English in all the
States.
c) Designate Hindi as one of
the official languages of the
United Nations.
Which of the above statements
are the recommendations of the
Committee?
(A) Only (a)
(B) Only (a) and (b)
(C) Only (b) and (c)
(D) (a), (b) and (c)
Q. 25. Consider the following
statements: (B)
a) Iltutmish introduced the
Sajdah and Paibos. No
b) Qutubuddin Aibak was the correct
founder of the Ilbary option,
dynasty. hence
c) Aibak died while playing invalid
Chaugan.
d) Itutmish constructed the
Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque at
Delhi.
Which statements given above
are correct?
(A) (a) and (b) only
(B) (b) and (c) only
(C) (a), (b) and (d) only
(D) None of the above
Q.50: The process of producing
Atom bomb and Hydrogen
bomb involves (A)
fission and fusion
respectively No
correct
A) fusion and fission option,
respectively
B) fusion in both cases
22 | P a g e
Sl. Case Details Challenged Questions Claimed Final
No. Options Ans. Key
C) fission in both cases hence
invalid
Q.67 Which of the following are
key indicators of poverty in
India.
(D)
(a) High Infant Mortality Rate
(b) Low Life Expectancy
(c) High Inflation Rate
(d) Low Literacy Rate (C)
A) (a), (b) and (c) only
B) (a), (b) and (d) only
C) (b), (c) and (d) only
D) (a) and (d)
Q.89. Which of the following
matters are required to be
passed by simple majority (B)
votes?
a) Removal of the Speaker and
the Deputy Speaker of the No
House. correct
b) Removal of the Chief option,
Election Commissioner and hence
the other Election invalid
Commissioners.
c) Removal of the Chairman of
the Raijya Sabha
d) Removal of the Deputy
Chairman of the Raijya
Sabha.
Select the correct answer by
using the codes given below
Codes:
(A) (a), (b), (c), (d)
(B) (a), (c), (d) only
(C) (c) only
(D) (a), (b), (c) only
[27] As regards the two questions in GS Paper-I which were not
referred to the expert committee, namely questions No. 9 and 89, the same
really do not make a difference for more than one reason and the reasons
are as follows :
23 | P a g e
i) Eight out of the nine appellants before us have not
cleared GS Paper-II as they have scored less than 33%.
Therefore, even on a demurer, if 2 marks each together
with the negative marks are added for these two
questions in GS Paper-I, it really will not make a
difference to their inclusion in cleared1308 candidates
or their writing the main examination;
ii) Eight out of nine appellants do not clear the 33% barrier
in GS Paper-II without notional addition of full marks
and negative marks for disputed questions and we are
not interfering with Pan India Expert Committee opinion
by respectfully following Ran Vijay Singh, Rishal and
Vikesh Kumar Gupta principles that Courts should
be very slow to interfere and therefore there is no
scope for notional addition of marks for disputed
questions.
[28] In this order elsewhere supra it has been mentioned that one
candidate namely, the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 802 of 2024 had scored
more than 33% in G.S.-II. Therefore, it is being dealt with separately. In
this case, unfortunately, for this candidate, he has scored less than 55.58%
in GS Paper-I. This means that this candidate, namely, writ petitioner in
WP(C) No. 802 of 2024 (writ appellant in W.A. No. 56 of 2025) will not come
within the thirteen times range i.e., within 1308 candidates shortlisted by
MPSC for writing main examination. As regards question Nos. 9 & 89
24 | P a g e
pertaining to report of official language and removal of certain constitutional
functionaries Kanpur University principle i.e., ratio in Kanpur
University, through Vice Chancellor and others Vs. Sameer Gupta
and others has not been satisfied as the answers given by MPSC have not
been demonstrated to be so wrong that no reasonable body would regard it
to be wrong and the endeavor of appellant is certainly not without resorting
to inferential process of reasoning/rationalization. In this regard paragraph
16 of Kanpur University is relevant and the same reads as follows:
'16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that
no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key
answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key-answer
should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it
should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by
a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong,
that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in
the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the
University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-
books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave
no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the
key answer is incorrect.'
[29] To be noted, the marks obtained by the nine appellants before
us has been set out in a tabulation and the same has also been placed before
us in the sealed envelope. The affidavit in which the details of the eight
experts have been set out is a notarized affidavit and it is an affidavit dated
04.11.2025 and this affidavit along with the marks scored by the nine
appellants before us in the two papers are put back in the envelope and the
same is sealed. This sealed envelope will now be kept in the custody of the
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for a reasonable length of time.
25 | P a g e
[30] In the reply submissions, Mr. S. Biswajit placed before us a
judgment reported in (2012) 6 Gauhati Law Reports 387 (Sapam Jiten
Singh and Ors. Vs. Manipur Public Service Commission and
another) for the proposition that an expert committee has to be constituted
by this Court. Though Sapam's case has been rendered by a Hon'ble Single
Bench of this Court, we respectfully perused the same. We find that
Sapam's case was one where MPSC has not resorted to expert committee
much less a Pan India Expert Committee as in the case on hand. Therefore,
Sapam's case is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not come to the
aid of the appellants. This Court is acutely conscious that the judgments
rendered by Hon'ble Single Benches are not normally referred before
Division Benches but we have respectfully adverted to the same too. Another
judgment referred to by Mr. Biswajit, learned senior advocate is Anoop's
case rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in
2015 6 AIR (Bom) (R) 140 (Anoop Vs. Mohta & V.L. Achliya). Before
we advert to Anoop's case, we also make it clear that this Court is acutely
conscious that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is not a coordinate
Bench and therefore, law of precedents will not compel us to follow the
same. It would at the highest have persuasive value. Nonetheless, we have
referred to Anoop's case and in Anoop's case, we find that the Division
Bench has specifically mentioned that the expert committee had returned
only one liners without any explanation, without any narrative and it is in
this context that in Anoop's case the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court (which is not a coordinate Bench) thought it fit to constitute
26 | P a g e
another expert committee. Before proceeding further with the case laws,
this Court deems it appropriate to write that with regard to citations/case
laws/ratio, this Court is respectfully applying Padma Sundara Rao (Dead)
and Others v. State of T.N and Other declaration of law made by a
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 3 SCC
533. Padma Sundara Rao on facts, is a case which arose from land
acquisition proceeding under Central Act, namely, Land Acquisition Act,
1894, and question was when land acquisition proceedings are quashed
whether a fresh period will be available to State for making declaration. In
this regard, in paragraph 9 by referring to Lord Morris in Herrington Vs.
British Railway, law was declared that reliance on case law should be based
on the fact situation of each case and there is always a peril in treating the
words or speech of the judgment as words of legislative enactment and
therefore, judicial utterances are made in the setting of a particular case.
What is of utmost significance is declaration of law made by Constitution
Bench in Padma Sundara Rao is to the effect that circumstantial flexibility
i.e. one additional or different fact may mean a world of difference between
conclusions in two cases. Paragraph 9 of Padma Sundara Rao is very
instructive and the same reads as follows :
'9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating
the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a
legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial
utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case,
said Lord Morris in Herrington Vs. British Railways Board.
27 | P a g e
Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a
world of difference between conclusions in two cases.'
[31] Reverting to the case laws that were referred to, Mr. Tayenjam
Momo Singh, learned senior counsel placed reliance on two case laws. First
case law is Rishal reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81. Learned senior counsel
relied on Rishal for the proposition that it would be desirable to have an
expert committee constituted. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to
paragraph 6 and 27. Facts of Rishal are available in paragraph 2 and from
paragraph 2 it comes to light that the matter pertains to the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission and examination being School Lecturer Examination,
2015 conducted by the said State Commission. Many candidates submitted
objections to papers and thereafter came to the court. A learned Single
Judge in and by an order dated 08.11.2016 reported in (2016) SCC Online
Rajasthan 10652 gave a slew of directions and thereafter, a second round
of litigation commenced. We find that this Rishal's case does not come to
the aid of the appellants for 3 (three) reasons and the three reasons are as
follows :
i) Rishal's case has been subsequently referred to in Vikesh
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 which was rendered by a
larger Bench namely, three member Bench and in Vikesh the
aforesaid principles that assessment of questions by courts
itself is not permissible and that the courts will be slow in
interfering with expert opinion in academic matters was laid
down. We respectfully follow Vikesh;
28 | P a g e
ii) Second reason is, in Rishal, the correctness of the question
and answer itself became a point of contention;
iii) The third reason is, in Rishal, it was case of more than two
correct answers for the same question which is not the case in
the instant legal drill at hand.
[32] Learned senior counsel also relied on Reetesh Kumar Singh
and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2025)
SCC OnLine 2273. Reetesh Kumar case is one pertaining to selection to
the post of Revenue Lekhpal in the State of Uttar Pradesh which became
subject matter of contest. In Reetesh Kumar also, the question of more
than two correct answers came up and that is not the issue in the case on
hand. Be that as it may, in Reetesh Kumar, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
paragraph 15 as reported in SCC Online has made it clear that Reetesh
Kumar shall not be treated a precedent.
[33] Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to write that
the issue of constituting a neutral expert committee was raised before the
Hon'ble Single Judge also. This plea of the writ petitioner has been captured
by the Hon'ble Single Bench in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned order
but the same has not been adverted to and a finding has not been returned
on the same. Nonetheless, we now return a finding on the same. This Court
having had the benefit of details of the expert committee as well as opinions
they have given qua the objections that have been raised. As Expert
Committee is Pan India neutral and opinion is not interfered with the
29 | P a g e
question of referring to another Expert Committee does not arise.
Constitution of the Eight Members Committee addresses the neutrality
argument as it is clearly not in-house, it is Pan India (other than Manipur)
and is a collection of academicians domain experts.
There is also a reference in the Hon'ble Single Bench order
regarding two correct answers. This occurs in paragraph 24. The relevant
portion reads as follows :
'[24] On a plain reading of the eight questions, the final answer keys to
the said questions and the objections raised thereto along with the
expert opinions, this court cannot conclusively arrive at a finding that the
petitioners have been able to prove demonstrably without any inferential
process or reasoning or without a process of rationalization that the said
final answer keys are palpably wrong. Moreover, when two equally
valiant interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot be said that
the answer key is demonstrably wrong. In view of the material facts
available on record, this court is of the considered view that in order to
establish the incorrectness and factual inaccuracy in the contested
answer keys, a prudent man having sufficient knowledge would need to
take a deep dive into the world of academia and research on the
purported incorrectness.'
[34] In the above extracted portion, there is obviously a
typographical error as 'valiant' should read as 'valid'/'variant'. This Court is
of the considered opinion that this observation does not make a difference
to the conclusion as it did not fall for consideration before the Hon'ble Single
Judge. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to Wambaugh
Inversion Test. Wambaugh Inversion Test has been repeatedly applied
30 | P a g e
in various cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Wambaugh Inversion Test
is one where a particular paragraph if removed and if judgment is read it
would not make a difference to the conclusion. Suffice to write that two
equally correct answers is nobody's case in the instant legal drill.
[35] This Court deems it appropriate to write that the expert
committee to which the objections qua six out of eight questions (all three in
GS Paper-II) were referred to is not an in-house expert committee qua
MPSC. It is clearly a neutral external committee constituted by academicians
and domain experts Pan India (other than Manipur) as already alluded to
supra.
[36] This Court respectfully applies the Vikesh Kumar Gupta
principle that courts will be very slow to interfere with the expert opinion in
academic matters. The Hon'ble Single Bench has also extensively referred
to Ran Vijay Singh but as we have referred to Vikesh Kumar Gupta which
was rendered on 07.12.2020 after Ran Vijay Singh which was rendered on
11.12.2017, we are not adverting to other case laws and we are not
burdening this order with all the case laws lest instant order may become
verbose.
[37] In this view of the matter, suffice to write that one of the
earliest case laws on this point i.e., Multiple choice answers (Objective type
questions) and objections to choices is the Kanpur University, through
Vice Chancellor and others Vs. Sameer Gupta and others rendered
by Three Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1983)
4 SCC 309 which we alluded to supra regarding Question Nos. 9 & 89 in GS
31 | P a g e
Paper-I which were not referred to Expert Committee. In Kanpur
University case, Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that Key Answer
should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and it should
not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalization. It was made clear that it must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say that it must be such as no
reasonable body well versed in the particular subject would regard the same
as correct. This principle laid down in Kanpur University has been
repeatedly followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it continues to hold the field,
it continues to be good law and it would suffice to say that this is not a case
which passes the Kanpur University test, i.e. passes muster qua Kanpur
University parameter. Suffice to write that the objections raised are not
such that they are so demonstrable and no reasonable person would agree
that the answers are incorrect.
[38] To conclude the adumbration of case laws which have been
adverted to, this Court deems it appropriate to write that this Court ferreted
out a judgment of Honb'le Delhi High Court in Prabha Devi and others
vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in SCC OnLine
Del 3253. Prabha Devi case was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court by way
of SLP No. 025048-025049 of 2016 and the SLP was dismissed on
02.09.2016 as is evident form the Supreme Court website. In the same spirit
in which we referred to Sapam's Case and Anoop's case, we referred to
Prabha Devi with deterrence. This Court is acutely conscious that dismissal
of SLP at the pre leave stage, i.e., the first part of Article 136 does not take
32 | P a g e
one to the doctrine of merger. Dismissal of SLP is only refusal to grant leave.
Therefore, the ratio continues to be that of a Division Bench. The lead case
in this regard is Kunhayammed and other Vs. State of Kerala and
another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359. In Prabha Devi, Hon'ble Division
Bench of Delhi High Court after referring to the series of case laws adverted
to four different options when certain questions are found to be incorrect.
These four options are (i) the question can be deleted and treated as Zero
mark question, (ii) the question though deleted each candidate can be
awarded marks, as if the answer was correct and without negative marks,
(iii) question is not deleted and the candidates who have given the right
answer are awarded marks, but there is not negative mark and (iv) if there
are two correct suggested answers, candidates who have given any of the
two answers suggested are awarded full mark. To be noted, in Prabha
Devi also Kanpur University case was respectfully referred to. Be that as
it may, as regards the four options, in the case on hand, with regard to seven
questions in GS Paper-I and one question in GS Paper-II, there was one
revision and seven dropping of questions. MPSC has resorted to giving full
marks for all the questions which has been referred to as grace marks,
therefore, the option which MPSC has chosen, is also in place, qua those of
the questions which were found to be nebulous by the Expert Committee.
This clearly shows that a very balanced approach has been taken.
[39] There was considerable arguments on delay and latches on the
part of the writ petitioners in approaching this Court. As would be evident
from the chronology stet out supra, the Final Results were declared on
33 | P a g e
28.05.2024 but the first of the writ petitions, namely, W.P. (C) No. 497 of
2024 (out of which W.A. No. 51 of 2025 arises) was filed in this Court only
on 25.07.2024. This two months delay was said to be latches and it was
also argued that the other five writ petitioners, who joined these five writ
petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 497 of 2024 after an interim order was granted
on 29.07.2024 are fence sitters. This submission of learned senior counsel
for counsel on record for the MPSC was resisted by learned senior counsel
for counsel on record for appellants, by saying that in the two months the
appellants have resorted to RTI route and representations about which there
is allusion supra. As we would not be holding in favour of appellants in the
captioned matters on the merits of the matter and other points, we make it
clear that we are not adjudicating upon this latches/fence sitters points, we
leave this question open to be considered in another matter i.e, in another
legal tussle, where a decision on such a point becomes imperative for
returning a verdict.
[40] We deem it appropriate to place on record our appreciation to
all the senior advocates and their respective counsel on record for taking a
very fair approach in adversarial adjudication.
[41] As regards lift off of some questions from CAT/CLAT minor
changes have been made and the same may will be to eliminate Rote
learning but we refrain from dilating on this as it is not imperative for the
verdict we are returning. Before writing the concluding paragraph 6 supra,
31.10.2025 order reads as follows:
34 | P a g e
'31.10.2025
[1] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier
proceedings made in the previous listings.
[2] In the course of the hearing today, it became necessary to look at
some facts and a illustrative list (not exhaustive) of the facts which need to be
looked into are as follows :
i) The number of candidates who sat for the preliminary examination
held on 30.04.2023;
ii) The number of candidates who got the qualifying marks of 33% in
G.S.-II;
iii) How many of the appellants before us have got qualifying marks in
G.S.-II?
iv) The number of candidates who have been shortlisted/held to be
qualified to write the final examination. To be noted, as per the list
published by MPSC, it appears to be 1318 but this needs to be
confirmed by the MPSC;
v) Of the number of candidates who have qualified to write the final
examinations, be it 1318 or any other number, the highest marks
secured by a candidate and the lowest marks secured by the last
candidate;
vi) When the last examinations for recruitment to these posts were held?
vii) The instructions says 12-13 times the number of vacancies, the number
of vacancies is shown as 100. Therefore, the basis on which 1318 or
any other number was arrived at.
viii) Marks scored by the 9 (nine) appellants before this Court in G.S.-I and
G.S.-II (for the present we permit MPSC to produce it in a sealed
envelope to the court, if so desired and if so advised).
[3] Faced with the difficulty of want of instructions, Dr. RK Deepak,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. L. Disney Meetei, counsel on
record for R2 MPSC, made a request to have the matter kept on Monday so that
Controller of Examinations of MPSC or any other person conversant with the facts
can be present in court with all the relevant files to aid, assist and instruct MPSC
counsel.
[4] List on Monday (03.11.2025) at 2:30 p.m. under the sub-caption
'Part Heard' within parenthesis.'
Various captured supra were furnished to court in the hearing
pursuant to above order/proceedings.
35 | P a g e
[42] Ergo, the sequitur is captioned five WAs fail and the same are
dismissed. Consequently, captioned MCs thereat also perish with the main
WAs and the same are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil/Sandeep
36 | P a g e
