These 2 (two) writ petitions, viz (1) Civil Rule No. 409 of 1998 and (2) Civil Rule No.450 of 1998 raise the same issues to be determined by this Court. Hence they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment. 2. By notification dated 28th May, 1997 applications were invited for undergoing training course of Female Health Workers, in short FHW, for the session 1997-98 by the Medical Directorate, Govt of Manipur. The writ petitioners submitted applications to the competent authority in time. Thereafter by notification dated 19th August, 1997 it was announced that the written test for selection of FHW training course 1997-98 would be held on 24.8.1997 at the GP Women's College, Imphai. The said notice was issued by the Director of Health Services. Admit Cards were duly issued to the petitioners and they all appeared in the test held on 24.8.1997. It was reliably learnt that selection had been made by a duly constituted Selection Board and the list had been submitted to the State Govt for approval. The petitioners were eagerly awaiting the results of the said test. 3. On 23.5.98 a news report appeared in local English daily 'The Imphal Free Press' that the results of the written test for selection of FHW held in August, 1997 had been cancelled as the marks of several candidates were found to be tampered with. A copy of the said news report has been filed with the petitions. Marks of atleast 23 general candidates and 15 ST candidates were said to have been over-written or modified or otherwise manipulated on the tabulation sheets. It was also stated that one candidate who had obtained only 2 marks was found to have been credited with 70 marks while someone who was credited with 62 marks was found to have got only 4 marks. In another local Manipur daily 'Yakairo' dated 23.5.98 it was reported that candidate bearing Roll No. 127 stood first in the test. It is contended that petitioner in Civil Rule 409 of 1998 is the person who had taken the aforesaid test with Roll No.127. 4. A clarification regarding the selection test result was issued by the members of the Selection Board on 25th May, 1998.Paral states that in total 853 candidates appeared in the test (639 general candidates, 195 ST candidates and 20 SC candidates). 4. A clarification regarding the selection test result was issued by the members of the Selection Board on 25th May, 1998.Paral states that in total 853 candidates appeared in the test (639 general candidates, 195 ST candidates and 20 SC candidates). In this regard it was pointed out that newspaper report that altogether there were 1271 candidates is incorrect. In para 2 it is stated that there was no question of tampering with marks secured by the individual candidates. It is the case of the Board Members that on cross checking there were some mistakes in the addition of the marks by some of the evaluators which were corrected by the concerned members of the Selection Board. All the corrected marks were signed by the concerned members after correcting them. In para 3 it is further clarified as regards the marks secured by the candidate bearing Roll No. 127, it is stated that in fact the candidate secured 70 marks, although the evaluator had given 72 marks. This mistake was corrected on cross checking. The allegation that someone who was credited with 62 marks was found to have been given only 4 marks is totally unfounded. It is further clarified that in the fact the said candidate was originally given 64 marks by the evaluator but on scrutiny it was found that in totalling there was a mistake and the candidate was allotted 62 marks. It has also been clarified that the candidate bearing Roll No.l 04 did not at all appear in the written test and as such there is no question of recommending the said candidate under any Roll No. In para 6 of the clarification it has been contended by the members of the Selection Board that if there was any doubt as regards the entries made in the tabulation sheet or in any other document where certain corrections were made, then such doubt should be clarified atleast in the presence of some of the members of the Selection Board. It is further contended by the members of the Selection Board that certain over-writing or correction in the marks secured by the candidates in the tabulation sheet were done as it became necessary to do so as there were some mistake in addition/totalling of marks secured by the candidates. 5. It is further contended by the members of the Selection Board that certain over-writing or correction in the marks secured by the candidates in the tabulation sheet were done as it became necessary to do so as there were some mistake in addition/totalling of marks secured by the candidates. 5. Annexure A/3 filed in Civil Rule 450 of 1998 is said to be the proceeding of the Selection Board. Altogether 60 candidates were recommended for allocation of seats on merit (39 general candidates, 19 ST candidates and 2 SC candidates). 6. A letter was also written to the Commissioner (Health), Govt of Manipur by the Deputy Nursing Superintendent clarifying certain things about the test conducted for the purpose of selection of candidates for undergoing FHW training course for the year 1997-98. She herself was a member of the Selection Board. It was stated that everything was done smoothly and without any complaint and there was no question of tampering with marks of any of the candidates. What she stated in her letter is similar to the clarification sought to be given by all the members of the Selection Board as I have stated above. 7. Notification dated 26th May, 1998 came to be issued by the Director of Health Services, Manipur. This notification has been impugned. It states : "In pursuance of Sectt Health Deptt letter No.25/l/80-M(Pt.I) dated the 26th May, 1998, the Govt has decided to reconduct the examination for selection of candidates for undergoing FHW Training Course for 1997-98. Further, the Govt has conveyed its approval to reconduct the examination on 3.6.98 wherein all the candidates who appeared in the last selection test held on 24.8.1997 shall be allowed to appear in the said test without examination fees. Therefore, all the concerned candidates are informed to collect fresh Admit Cards by bringing the old Admit Cards and also two pass port size photographs from this Directorate from 28th to 30th May, 1998 during office hours. The venue and timing of the examination shall be intimated at the time of issue of Admit Cards." 8. It may be stated that this order was stayed by this Court on 1.6.98. Operative portion states : "In the meantime no examination for selection of Female Health Workers and Male Health Workers as ordered under notification dated 26.5.98 at Annexure A/9 shall be allowed." 9. I have heard Mr. It may be stated that this order was stayed by this Court on 1.6.98. Operative portion states : "In the meantime no examination for selection of Female Health Workers and Male Health Workers as ordered under notification dated 26.5.98 at Annexure A/9 shall be allowed." 9. I have heard Mr. Lalitkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General, Govt of Manipur, Mr. HS Paonam, learned counsel appears on behalf of the members of the Selection Board. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there are no grounds justifying cancellation of results of the test taken in August, 1997 and to reconduct the same test in respect of the same candidates. It is also submitted that the results of the earlier test could not have been cancelled without a definite finding that the marks secured by the candidates were indeed tampered with. It may be stated that no enquiry was made in respect of the said allegation which was highlighted in the local newspapers. It is not the case of the Govt that some enquiry was made and it was found that the test results were tampered with and as such could not be acted upon. Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General submits that it would be fair to make an enquiry to find out whether such complaint or allegation is founded or unfounded. Mr. Nandakumar's submission is that as regards such enquiry the matter should be left with the State Govt which has jurisdiction in such matter and this Court may not interfere as regards-the enquiry. It appears, the results of the test taken in 1997 are sought to be abandoned and another test is sought to be conducted only on the ground that the concerned Minister saw some over-writing or correction etc in the tabulation sheets of the result. Mr. HS Paonam submits that the members of the Board have done everything possible in the matter of selection of candidates for undergoing FHW Course Training in the present case. It is submitted by Mr. Paonam that the members of the Selection Board are competent to see and cross check if there was any mistake in the totalling or addition of marks secured by each candidate by looking at the answer scripts. It is submitted by Mr. Paonam that the members of the Selection Board are competent to see and cross check if there was any mistake in the totalling or addition of marks secured by each candidate by looking at the answer scripts. It is submitted that the members of the Selection Board cannot be faulted if corrections have been done according to the marks allotted by the evalutors (Examiner and Chief Examiner/Scrutiniser etc). 11. In the present case there is absolutely no allegation as regards the fairness in the conduct of the test in question. Procedure adopted in the selection test has nowhere been assailed. At the same time there is absolutely no grievance from any of the candidates as regards the conduct of selection test. The only question therefore that I would need to see is whether marks secured by the candidates have been tampered with while tabulation sheets were prepared. I may also state here that if certain correction in addition/totalling is carried out and if such corrected figures are the correct ones, there is no reason why such thing could not be done by the competent authority. 12. Tabulation sheets as well as answer scripts have been made available to me. I have carefully checked all the answer scripts in respects of which certain corrections/over-writting were found in the tabulation sheets. Particularly I have checked the marks allotted in each answer script of the selected candidates. The answer scripts of the recommended candidates were sent in a separate sealed cover to me. Corrections carried out in respect of candidates whose names were sought to be recommended by the members of the Selection Board were in the matter of addition/totalling of marks. In one case although the actual marks secured by the candidate was 70, in total it was shown as 72. This has been corrected as 70. In another case the total was 64 whereas it should be 62. That correction also has been made and 62 tallies with the answer script. So also in respect of another candidate the total marks were shown as 49, whereas it should be 51 in accordance with the answer script. That correction also has been made. In another case the total marks were shown as 54 whereas according to the answer script it should be 53 and that correction has been made in the tabulation sheet. That correction also has been made. In another case the total marks were shown as 54 whereas according to the answer script it should be 53 and that correction has been made in the tabulation sheet. I do not find marks of the recommended candidates in any way tampered with. The answer scripts of the candidates who were not recommended but whose marks are said to have been tampered with have also been carefully checked. It is not my business to evaluate. I have simply seen the marks allotted by the evaluator/examiner/ scrutiniser etc. I have found that corrections have been made in the tabulation sheet in terms of the marks allotted by the examiner. In one or two cases addition of 1 or 2 marks by scrutiniser is found. In some cases one or two marks are sought to be deducted by scrutiniser for wrong answers. Except such very minor corrections there is no evidence to show that the marks of these candidates who have not been recommended have in any way been tampered with. 13.1 have carefully perused the pleadings and all the documents including tabulation sheets and answer scripts. There is no justification to reconduct the same test in respect of some candidates. In otherwords the entire conduct of selection test appears to me to be quite fair and no interference is at all called for. 14. In the result, these petitions are disposed of as follows : The impugned order dated 26th May, 1998 issued by the Director of Health Services is set aside. The results of the recommended candidates should be published forthwith so as to enable the selected candidates to undergo the prescribed course without wasting any further time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.