Respected Sir,
Most of the examinations conducted by the MPSC do not happily get finished without a controversy. Be it for a right reason or wrong reason. We do find instances where many candidates who felt Set down use to take legal recourse for redressal of their grievances. I am also one of such candidates who have fought retentfessly to get to the bottom of the alleged violation of the MCSCC Examination Rules in the conduct of 2010 MCS/MPS exam. My whole fight actually began when I was informed by the MPSC vide RTI reply dated 05-11-2012 that I had not obtained the qualifying mark in the General English paper and as such my other seven main papers had not been evaluated by virtue of the provision incorporated under Note (ii) of Section II of Chapter It of the aforesaid Rules. Surprisingly, it was later found that all my seven main papers had been duly evaluated by the concerned examiners which virtually put me in the fourth position of the overall written test of the said exam. Leaving aside all these for a while, what concerns us the most at the moment is how MPSC had applied the same provisions of Note (ii) in 2010 exam and subsequently in 2013 & 2014 exams. To get a complete picture of 2010 exam, we need to move a little back to the court proceeding. During the writ proceedings, MPSC by filing an affidavit had submitted that that the provision under Note (ii) is only a directory rule, but not a mandatory rule that until and unless the qualifying paper (General English Paper) is examined and the result thereof is out, the other papers cannot be examined. MPSC further submitted that there is no such legal necessity that the General English paper should be examined first and therefore, under compelling circumstances, all the papers of the candidates including General English paper were examined at the same time (simultaneously) to save time, money and everything. Thus the initial statement made by the MPSC in their RTI reply which indicated non-evaluation of my seven papers on account of my failure to obtain the qualifying mark in General English paper and the later statement made by the MPSC in their affidavit regarding simultaneous evaluation of all the papers including General English paper are contradictory to one another. Even though the Hon`ble High Court of Manipur has also decided the case in my favour, the controversy surrounding 2010 exam does not seem to end even today. The recent development has further put a serious question mark on the credibility of those officers of the MPSC who were at the helm of affairs during 2010 exam, I had filed another RTI application on 01-10-2014 but this time with respect to 2013 and 2014 examinations. The information which I sought were how many candidates have failed to qualify in the General English paper in 2013 and 2014 exams and whether the remaining seven main papers of those candidates who had failed to qualify in the Genera! English paper have been evaluated further or not. Despite my repeated request, MPSC refused to furnish the information. Then I had filed a complaint petition before the Central information Commission (CIC). On the direction of the CIC, Manipur Information Commission took up the matter and summoned some officials of the MPSC. Consequent to that, the information has been finally provided by the MPSC after almost eight months vide RTI reply dated 12-06-2015 which reveals that only 7 candidates in 2013 Exam and 14 candidates in 2014 Exam had not qualified in the General English paper and the other seven main papers of the said candidates had not been evaluated, (in 2010 exam, 109 candidates were deliberately disqualified in General English paper).Therefore, the subsequent action of the MPSC clearly implies that 2013 and 2014 exams had been conducted with maximum care keeping in mind the legal requirement as envisaged under Note (ii) of the examination Rules.The word `directory` as cleverly invented by the MPSC in order to sweep the irregularities of 2010 exam under the carpet had ultimately become a `mandatory` one in the subsequent examinations.Summing up, the latest RTI reply which has vividly reflected MPSC`s strict adherence to the examination Rules in 2013 and 2014 exams regarding evaluation of seven main papers of only those candidates who had qualified in General English paper almost confirms that MPSC had altogether violated the provisions of note (ii) in 2010 exam. This again leads to the logical conclusion that the MPSC had also made a conscious attempt to interfere with the due judicial process by misinterpreting the provision of note (ii) as a “directory” rule. Lastly, MPSC may win or lose court cases but somebody has to be necessarily there to take cognizance of serious acts of impropriety or immorality committed by any of its officials. Always switching to the idea of fighting every case in a court of law by hook or by crook is not a healthy proposition for a constitutional authority like MPSC. Legal expense is not a big deal for MPSC so long as they are getting adequate fund from the State government. But for an individual litigant, it is an uphill task to fight a case financially.Transparency and accountability is what everybody expects from MPSC but not `manipulation` `discrimination1 and `litigation`. The deadly combination of this trio can ruin the entire lives of many deserving candidates.
Yours Faithfully
Hanjabam Bobby Sharma
S/o H. Kunjakishor Sharma
BrahmapurThangapat Mapal, Imphal East