SC issues contempt notice to Manipur Chief Secretary over service continuity & consequential benefits to re-appointed MPSC officers

Supreme Court: In a contempt petition against Chief Secretary of Manipur for contempt of Court’s directive in State of Manipur v. Shalini Chingtham¹, whereby it was directed that the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016 conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts, the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ. issued notice to the Chief Secretary, Manipur and the Secretary, Land Resources Department.

Genesis

The Manipur Public Service Commission MPSC issued a notification dated 07-04-2016 inviting applications for 82 posts across five service categories through the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 (‘MCSCCE, 2016’). These posts/services included Manipur Civil Services Grade-II; Manipur Police Service Grade-II; Sub-Deputy Collector; Manipur Secretariat Service/ Section Officer and the Election Officer.

The MCSCCE, 2016 was conducted in two stages: the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination (Written and Interview). The present petitioners were successful in MCSCCE, 2016. However, some of the unsuccessful candidates of the written examination of MCSCCE (Main), 2016 filed writ petitions seeking cancellation of results. The Single Judge of the High Court appointed a retired Judge as Commissioner of the “First Commission” to investigate the allegations raised regarding the conduct of exam. Relying upon the First Commission’s Report, stating that “no patent illegality has been disclosed which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review”, the said petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioners herein were appointed as Manipur Civil Services (MCS) on 23-06-2017 and served in various administrative capacities and, after successfully completing their probation period of two years, they were confirmed in service as MCS. The unsuccessful candidates appealed against the Single Judge’s decision. The Division Bench, by solely relying on the Second Inquiry Committee’s Report, vide its final order dated 18-10-2019 quashed the MCSCCE, 2016 and the consequential appointments. The Court upheld the quashing of the Main Examination, 2016 and consequential appointments.

Later, in December 2019, it was discovered that three children of both members of the Second Inquiry Committee had participated in and failed the MCSCCE Examination, 2016. This revelation cast serious doubts on the Committee’s impartiality and highlighted a conflict of interest. The State filed Review Petitions before the High Court, which came to be dismissed. Consequently, the State filed the special leave petition before the Court, challenging the Division Bench order dated 18-10-2019, and the dismissal of the review petitions. The Court in Shalini Chingtham (supra), gave three main directives, as following:

1. The MPSC will conduct the main examination of main examination of MCSCCE afresh not later than four months from the date of order.

2. Only those candidates (successful/ unsuccessful) who had appeared in the main examination conducted in September, 2016 will be eligible to appear in the proposed examination.

3. In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.

Abiding by the above 1 and 2 directives, the re-examination was conducted, and the present petitioners again scored ranks. Therefore, the petitioners were again re-appointed to the MCS.

Contempt Petition

The present petitioner’s case was that, despite being fully aware that the three directions issued by the instant Court were interwoven and formed a unified set of mandates of an equitable order, the respondents acted in complete defiance of third direction. Hence, the petitioners had sought continuity of service and consequential benefits, including seniority, in the post of MCS, in compliance with the 3rd direction. In the instant matter, the petitioners had submitted that despite sufficient time, opportunities and multiple requests, the respondents disobeyed the order, committing contempt. The petitioners were denied continuity of service and consequential benefits, including seniority, from the date of their initial appointment and that such disobedience constituted willful disobedience, which is a clear contempt of Court.

1. S.L.P. (C.) Diary No. 5680/2021