CBI to probe graft in Manipur Civil Services exam

New Delhi: The CBI has filed an FIR to probe the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the civil services (mains) examination for 2016 organised by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC).

According to sources, the agency has registered the case against unidentified officials of the MPSC on the orders of the Manipur high court. The Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination (CSCCE), 2016 had selected 82 officers of the Manipur Civil Service, Manipur Police Service and allied services whose services were quashed following the high court orders.

The HC had in October last year quashed the examination after several aspirants approached it alleging irregularities in the selection process and also ordered a CBI probe into the matter. It had then instituted a two-member panel to probe the matter, which revealed “irregularities and discrepancies”, including absence of examiners’ signatures on answer scripts and manipulation of marks and allotment of marks without evaluation of answer scripts. “The MPSC appears to have taken the examination very lightly, like a child's play, completely forgetting that it would decide and determine the career of a candidate,” it had said while handing over the investigation to the CBI.

In November last year, the order was upheld by the Supreme Court, which told the agency to conduct a time-bound investigation. The panel looking into the alleged irregularities had found serious lapses such as alteration of the numbers scored, non-appointment of a Controller of Examin-ation (CoE), absence of a procedure for evaluation and tabulation of answer sheets, among others, the officials said. In its order directing the CBI to take over the probe, the high court had noted that out of 8,163 answer sheets, the examiners did not put their signatures in respect of seven papers or subjects, while in 15 papers, the supervisors did not put their signatures.

Taking note of the non-appointment of a CoE, the high court had said the rules stated that the appointment was “implicit and indispensable” and the official's presence was  required for codification of answer sheets as he shall be responsible for their safe custody and secrecy. The provisions made it clear that the CoE and the Secretary, MPSC  shall be two different persons, it had said. In the case, the Secretary, MPSC had allegedly assumed the role of the CoE as well.