MCSCCE 2016: One Candidate scored 129 marks but given 32 marks!
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, July 19 2018: Even as one candidate of Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination (MCSCCE) 2016 scored 129 marks in total, only 32 marks were entered in the front table.

This was discovered in the course of re-checking 8163 answer sheets of all the candidates who appeared in MCSCCE 2016 by a two-member committee constituted at the behest of the High Court of Manipur.

The committee, after re-checking all the answer sheets, submitted a report to the High Court on July 9.Gross irregularities, manipulation or alterations were detected in the process of entering final marks of candidates.

While the final marks of some candidates were entered higher than the actual marks they scored, final marks of many other candidates as entered in the score sheets were found lesser than they scored.

Acting on a petition filed by some unsuccessful candidates of the examination conducted by Manipur Public Service Commission from September 4 to 23, 2016, the High Court of Manipur constituted an enquiry committee to re-check answer sheets of all candidates.

However, 82 successful candidates who had joined State Government services filed a counter petition and subsequently their answer sheets were excluded from the re-evaluation.

Later, the High Court directed the enquiry committee to re-evaluate answer sheets of only the petitioners.

But the petitioners filed a fresh petition at the Supreme Court.

As instructed by the apex Court, the two-member enquiry committee constituted by the High Court of Manipur was instructed to re-evaluate answer sheets of each and every candidate.

The members of the enquiry committee are retired District and Session Judge U Kol Singh and retired IAS Y Jugindro who is also a former MPSC Secretary.

The enquiry was carried out based on eight parameters including the number of answer sheets with no signatures of examiners, if any; the number of answer sheets with no signatures of supervisors, if any; number of answer sheets where no marks were given, if any; alteration of marks without initials of examiners, if any etc.

Concerned examiners did not sign answer sheets of 75 candidates in General English Paper 1 while supervisors did not sign answer sheets of six candidates in the same paper.

Marks secured by one candidate in General English Paper II were found altered without any initials.

Altogether 881 candidates appeared in the Education Paper I exam but none of their answer sheets were signed by supervisors.

Four candidates gave the exam in Geology Paper I as an optional paper but none of the four answer sheets showed any sign of evaluation by examiner.

As such, they were not given any mark against their answer sheets.

However, certain marks were found entered in the total marks table against their names.

In History Paper II, one candidate wrote extra answers and the examiner gave marks for each and every answer.

As a result, the candidate was given 48 more marks than what he/she actually secured.

Gross irregularities and errors were detected in General Studies Papers I and II.

Marks entered in the final score-sheet of some candidates were found higher by 8, 9 and 20 marks than they actually scored while marks of some other candidates as entered in the final score sheet were found lesser by 14, 19, 24 etc than they actually scored.

A candidate was given 39 marks against a particular question of 30 marks.

Nonetheless, 29 marks were entered in the marks-table.

A candidate scored 129 marks in Geography Paper II but only 32 marks were entered in the front table of the answer sheet.

In Manipuri Literature Paper II, one candidate wrote extra answers but the examiner instead of discounting the additional answers gave 30 extra marks.

The enquiry found that answer sheets of 93 candidates were not signed by examiners while answer sheets of 5764 candidates were not signed by supervisors.

Marks secured by 523 candidates were found altered without examiners' signatures.

The report submitted to the High Court pointed out that many irregularities such as absence of signatures of examiners, supervisors and invigilators on a number of answer sheets, alteration of marks and tabulation errors have been detected.

Comment