WAHENGBAM BIKENDRO SINGH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H. Genananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Respondents, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5, Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel appearing for 64 (sixty four) private respondents, Ms. H. Bisheshwari, learned counsel appearing for 6 (six) private respondents; Mr. N. Mehendra, learned counsel appearing for 293 (two hundred and ninety three) private respondents and Mr. R.K. Deepak Singh, learned Advocate for 7 (seven) private respondents.

(2.) SINCE both the writ petitions arise out of the similar set of facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(3.) THE above writ petition was contested by the State respondents by way of an affidavit -in -opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 wherein it is stated that when the result of the said DPC came to be published in the newspaper causing suspicion in the mind of the public, the matter was brought to the notice of the Cabinet which felt that a Committee be constituted to enquire into the irregularity/impropriety/illegality committed by the DPC and when the report, submitted by the Committee constituted vide order dated 27 -06 -2010, was placed before the Cabinet on 22 -09 -2010 which advised for obtaining legal opinions from the Law Department and the learned Advocate General and after obtaining the said legal views from the Legal Department and learned Advocate General, the matter was placed before the Cabinet for consideration which took a decision on 16 -12 -2010 that the Administrative Department should constitute a Review DPC which was constituted on 24 -12 -2010 and on the basis of the recommendation of the said Review DPC, the result of the DPC was declared vide Notification dated 04 -09 -2011. It is further stated that an OM dated 27 -12 -2006 as a policy decision came to be issued prescribing the percentage of reservation for the OBC candidates in matters of appointment and although the said OM was subsequent to the requisition of the candidates for appointment of Primary Teachers vide Notice dated 12 -09 -2006, the adoption of such a reservation policy during the process of recruitment was not illegal. It is also stated that since the petitioners having been allowed to participate in the selection process and found not being successful, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the recommendation made by the Review DPC on the basis of merit. The respondent No. 5, the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur also filed an affidavit -in -opposition wherein it is stated that the Board was entrusted the task of conducting the written examination only by the State Government and accordingly, the written examination was held on 22 -12 -2006 and the result thereof was declared in the month of April, 2007 and no complaint from anyone was received by the Board regarding manipulation or otherwise thereof. It is also stated that as there was no space for preserving the answer scripts, the same were disposed of pursuant to a resolution dated 15 -05 -2008 of the Board as per the norms of the Board.