Qualifying mark of 50 pc in English Illegal : HC to MPSC
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, June 10 2014: The High Court of Manipur has issued a ruling which categorically stated that fixing 50 per cent as qualifying mark in General English by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination 2010 was unreasonably high and arbitrary, and hence illegal.

The High Court issued this ruling on March 24 this year in response to writ petitions filed by Hanjabam Bobby Sharma s/o H Kunjakishor Sharma of Brahmapur Thangapat Mapal and Tongbram Shyamkumar Singh s/o T Dhananjoy Singh of Utlou Makha Leikai, Nambol.

H Bobby appeared in the said exam as an OBC candidate and he scored 45 per cent in General English paper while T Dhananjoy who is visually impaired scored 41.5 per cent in the same paper.

Seat of justice : The Manipur High Court

In the same order, the High Court directed the MPSC to re-fix the qualifying mark and treat it as 'pass mark' .

The Court also directed MPSC to re-fix the said qualifying mark for physically disabled candidates.

MPSC was directed to conduct interviews of the petitioners if they are found qualified upon re-fixation of the qualifying mark.

Necessary recommendations are to be made to the State Government if the petitioners are found to have scored marks higher than any of the private respondents, and for this the State Government was directed to create supernumerary posts for affording their appointments with retrospective effect.

The High Court observed that the purpose of determining the qualifying mark in General English paper is not to select the best candidates.

It has the limited purpose of determining the minimum standard required for a candidate to be able to discharge the public function and duties efficiently as required of a public servant.

Marks obtained in English are not counted for the total marks secured.

The qualifying mark has to be read as passing mark.

It need not vary from examination to examination and should be of determinate nature as its purpose is only to test the basic knowledge in English.

Even as the High Court opined that the result of the said examination would be rendered illegal, it maintained that the recommendation and selection made by the MPSC by acting upon the said qualifying mark need not be disturbed in public interest.

The Court further observed if the UPSC and various State Public Service Commissions have fixed the qualifying mark in English between 20-40 per cent, what would be the rationale behind the MPSC to fix the qualifying mark at 50 per cent.

A per the records available, it is only the MPSC in the entire country which has fixed 50 per cent as qualifying mark in English.

The MPSC has also failed to satisfactorily explain as to how they have fixed such a high mark of 50 per cent except for stating that it was so fixed in the previous examination of 2006 .

Apart from this precedence, there is nothing on record either in the affidavit filed by the MPSC or by way of producing relevant records to show that the MPSC had given due consideration to various factors including the practice or norm prevailing in other States or even in UPSC while fixing the qualifying mark.

Paradoxically, the MPSC in the subsequent affidavit filed on January 20 this year stated that it consulted the UPSC and after having taken into consideration the practices followed in other State Public Service Commissions, the relevant factors and the existing situation, the MPSC has changed the qualifying mark of General English to 40 per cent for General, 38 per cent for OBC, 35 per cent for ST &SC and 30 per cent for persons with physical disabilities.

The High Court also referred to two Supreme Court cases viz; Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission VsTage Habung (2013) in which the apex Court held that fixing the cut off mark at 40 per cent in English as qualifying mark was unreasonable and unjustified, and another case viz Sanchit Bansal Vs Joint Admission Board (2012) in which the Supreme Court held that where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious, the Court can interfere in the academic and policy matters.

Senior Advocate Ibotombi Namoijam and Advocate M Devananda appeared for H Bobby and T Shyamkumar while Senior Advocate L Shyamkishore appeared on behalf of MPSC.

The High Court judgement passed by Justice N Kotiswar also granted five weeks time to the MPSC and the State Government from the date of the order to comply with its directions.

Notably, petitioner Hanjabam Bobby stood fourth position in the overall written test of the said examination but he was denied interview call on the pretext that he did not qualify in the General English paper.