Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

MPSC and others v. Shri Millon Ch. Momin and others After verification of the original marks by the Petitioner and the Chief Controller of Examination, the MPSC uploaded the corrected version of the result in respect of the Petitioner bearing Roll No 21 on its website. It is a fact that due to human error the interview marks of candidate bearing Roll No 21 was erroneously entered in the statement used for displaying the marks of all the candidates who had appeared for the interview to the post of Junior MPS Officer scheduled on the 15.12.2014, 16.12.2014 and 17.12.2014."

The rival submissions in appeal Seeking to assail the order impugned, learned counsel for the appellant Shri K. Paul has strenuously argued that there had been neither reason nor any justification for ordering CBI enquiry in this matter. The learned counsel elaborated on his submissions that of course, there had been errors in uploading the marks of the candidates, particularly when the writ petitioner was shown having secured 200 marks in the interview and 874 marks in total but then, it had only been a matter of human clerical error, as has been specified in detail in the counter affidavit to the petition. The learned counsel also submitted that in fact, the tabulation as prepared by hand correctly recorded the marks of the petitioner and the error occurred when excel sheet was prepared for uploading but in any case, such a matter MPSC and others v. Shri Millon Ch. Momin and others cannot be said to be of any manipulation or ill-intent on the part of the Commission. The learned counsel emphasised on the submissions that the plenary powers in the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide enough to return any finding after examination of the record and to pass any appropriate order as considered necessary in the interest of justice but then, such a process of examination of record cannot be delegated to any other agency. According to the learned counsel, even if certain doubts cropped up or were generated by the writ petitioner, the matter could not have been referred for CBI enquiry. The enquiry, learned counsel contended, was required to be conducted in the first place by the Hon‟ble Court and at least a prima facie finding was required to be returned that any particular aspect was calling for enquiry by CBI; and handing over the matter for CBI enquiry without even a prima facie finding by the Court was not justified. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Ors : (2002) 5 SCC 521 and State of West Bengal v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights : (2010) 3 SCC 571.