MCSCC (Main) Exam 2016 : HC constituted panel points out irregularities
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, March 25 2018:
An enquiry committee constituted at the behest of the High Court, of Manipur which conducted verification of the answer sheets of 44 petitioners of a writ petition filed at the High Court who appeared in the MCSCC (Main) Exam 2016 has pointed out that there are quite a few irregularities in the process of evaluating the answer sheets.
Even as the High Court directed the enquiry committee to verify answer sheets of all 1068 candidates who appeared the exam, some of the selected candidates filed a special leave petition at the Supreme Court, according to the Group of Aspirants MPSC co-convenor Keisham Kisan.
Speaking to media persons today, Kisan said that subsequent upon the special leave petition, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court of Manipur to restrict the enquiry and verification of answer sheets to only those of the 44 petitioners.
The enquiry committee comprising of retired District and Sessions Judge U Kol Singh and retired IAS Yumnam Jugindro had submitted an interim report and the High Court had forwarded the same report to the Supreme Court.
The interim report points out that there are many answer scripts which are without signatures of the examiner and/or the supervisor, Kisan said.
There are also alteration of marks as well as totaling errors in many answer scripts.
It cannot be ascertained to the naked eye that the Zoology paper was evaluated/signed by one and same person/expert (as claimed by the MPSC) as the signatures found in answer scripts are different, Kisan said citing the interim report.
After perusing the interim report, the Supreme Court remarked that whether any verification is to be conducted at all is itself a question.
Whereas Sh Prashant Bhushan who appeared for the intervenors prayed for re-verification of answer scripts of other candidates too since the total number of candidates are only 1068, the counsel appearing for the Manipur Public Service Commission sought two week's time to file response to the report of the committee and on further course of action.
Later, the apex Court fixed April 12 for the next round of hearing.