CBI takes over probe into irregularities in Manipur civil services exam, 2016

NEW DELHI: The CBI has registered a case to probe alleged irregularities in the conduct of the civil services examination (mains), 2016 organised by the Manipur Public Service Commission, officials said on Monday.

The agency has registered the case against unidentified officials of the commission on the orders of the Manipur High Court, they added.

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 high court had, in October last year, quashed the examination after several aspirants approached it alleging irregularities in the selection process and also ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (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, 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 timebound 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 Examination (COE), absence of a procedure for evaluation

The HC had noted that out of 8,163 answer sheets, the examiners did not put their signatures in respect of 7 papers or subjects, while in 15 papers, the supervisors did not put their signatures

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.