Rehan Khan
On 20th August, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Vineet Joshi, the Chief Secretary of Manipur, in response to a petition filed by serving officers of the state. These officers have alleged willful disobedience of a prior order issued by the Court. The contempt notice was issued by a Division Bench consisting of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, who, for the time being, have dispensed with the personal appearance of the alleged contemnors—Vineet Joshi and Namoijam Kheda Vrata Singh, the Secretary of the Land Resources Department.
The controversy stems from the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016, which was conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC). The petitioners in this case were selected and appointed as state officers based on the results of this examination. However, the legitimacy of the exam was called into question, leading to a series of legal challenges.
A batch of petitions was filed before the Manipur High Court, alleging significant irregularities in the conduct of the 2016 examination. On October 18, 2019, the High Court annulled the examination along with the appointments made as a result, and ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the matter. The High Court identified several critical flaws in the examination process, including:
- The failure to appoint a Controller of Examination, despite the vital and extensive duties associated with the role.
- The lack of a clearly defined procedure for evaluating and tabulating answer books, led to examiners having unchecked discretion. Notably, one examiner took answer sheets home for evaluation, outside the state of Manipur.
- The questionable timing of the result declaration for the Main Examination, 2016. The evaluation of the last subject concluded just a day before the results were announced, raising doubts about the thoroughness of the scrutiny conducted.
- The MPSC’s failure to adopt moderation or scaling of marks, in direct contravention of established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- The violation of directions issued in the H. Bobby Sharma v. MPSC, W.P.(C) No.13 of 2013 case, where the High Court mandated that the qualifying criteria for examinations must align with those set by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
The State of Manipur challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. In November 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to invalidate the examination and its directive for a CBI investigation. A bench comprising Justices Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna confirmed the High Court’s findings.
Subsequent to this, new evidence emerged pointing to violations of natural justice principles and fraudulent practices. The State sought a review of the High Court’s October 18, 2019 order, but the review petition was dismissed on December 17, 2020. The State then approached the Supreme Court once more, contesting this dismissal.
On February 11, 2022, the Supreme Court refrained from re-evaluating the grievances raised by the petitioners or the High Court’s assessment of those grievances. However, it ordered that the MPSC conduct a fresh examination within four months for those who had appeared in the September 2016 Mains exam. The Court also directed that candidates who were successful in the re-conducted examination should be granted continuity of service and the corresponding benefits, should they be appointed to the relevant positions.
The Court explicitly stated, “In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.”
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive, the State allegedly failed to grant the petitioners continuity of service and the associated benefits, even after they successfully reappeared for the exam and were reappointed to their previous posts. This led the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court again, claiming that its order had been wilfully disobeyed.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, with Advocates Namit Saxena, Awnish Maithani, D. Bharat Kumar, Gopal Jha, Elangbam Premjit Singh, and Niraj Boby Paonam also appearing in their support.
Case title: Laishram Tarajeet Singh & Anr. Versus Vineet Joshi & Ors.
Case no.: Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 611-620/2024