Sub-Inspector recruitment:: HC orders Govt to appoint one 'missed' candidate after reevaluation
Source: Hueiyen News Service

Imphal, December 24, 2013: The High Court of Manipur has ordered the State Government to appoint one unsuccessful candidate to the post of Sub-Inspector (SI) of Police, if he is found more meritorious than any of the successful candidates in the recruitment test for 41 posts of Sub-Inspector of Manipur Police held in 2006. The order was issued by the High Court on December 21 after hearing a writ petition filed by one Ningthoujam Devdas (31), s/o N Ibochouba of Kairenphabi Village, Bishnupur district, who was declared unsuccessful in the recruitment test.

According to the petitioner, he applied for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in terms of the public notice issued by State Government on October 8, 2006, and accordingly he participated in the recruitment process which consisted of physical efficiency test carrying 20 marks, written tests for English and General Knowledge each carrying 30 marks and viva-voce carrying 20 marks, thus, in all 100 marks.

Devdas (the petitioner) had successfully passed in the physical efficiency test and also had done very well in the written tests.

He was then called for the viva-voce.

However, when the result was declared on February 26, 2007, his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates.

Being suspicious of the tests, more particularly of the written tests, the petitioner applied for copies of the answer sheets which were duly furnished to him.

On perusal of the copies of the answer sheets furnished to him, it was found out that marks were deducted from some of the correctly answered questions.

Even in English subject, the essay was awarded 3.5 marks, but it was subsequently reduced to 2.5 marks without any proper authentication from the examiner.

The petitioner contended that he has been unduly deprived of marks which he deserved.

After hearing the counsels of both the petitioner and respondents (the State of Manipur and others), the Court said that the authorities would be required to reevaluate the answers given by the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner has secured more marks than of the successful candidates who have been appointed, the petitioner would also be entitled to be included in the Select List for the purpose of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

It has been submitted by the Government Advocate that all 41 pots have already been duly filled up and as such, it may not be possible to appoint the petitioner at this stage.

As regards this contention, the Court said that the contention cannot come in the way of the right of the petitioner for, if the petitioner had been wrongly deprived of marks which he had rightfully deserved, it was not his fault and he cannot be penalized for the same, and it would be for the authorities to take necessary steps to ensure that the petitioner is given his due and given appointment, if he is found more meritorious than any of the appointed candidates on the basis of the exercise so undertaken as directed above.

In such an event, it would be open to the State authorities either to appoint the petitioner against any existing vacant post of Sub-Inspector of Police or by replacing the last candidate who had secured less mark than the petitioner in the said selection process.

The aforesaid exercise must be undertaken by the authorities within a period of two months from December 21, the Court added.

Khaidem Mani was the counsel of the petitioner while S Nepolean appeared on behalf of the State Government.

Comment