NINGTHOUJAM DEVDAS SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 4, 11, 24, 25, 30, 40 and 57. The other private respondents have not appeared inspite of proper service of notice. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26.2.2007 by which the result for appointment to 41 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police advertised was declared in which the name of the petitioner does not find place and for a direction to the respondents for re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the successful candidates.

(2.) The relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows.

(3.) The State respondents have contested the writ petition and filed the affidavit-in-opposition. The main contention of the State respondents is that the marks have been given to the petitioner strictly in terms of the key answers, which have been prepared by the experts, provided to the examiners and as such, does not call for any interference from this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.