1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H.NK. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Genananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. The eleven petitioners who are aspirants for various Manipur Civil Services posts have approached this court for setting aside the result of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 declared on 24.9.2011 and for a direction to the authorities concerned to hold the examination afresh. 3. Before going to the rival contentions of the parties, it may be apposite to refer briefly to the facts involved in this present writ petition. 4. The Manipur Public Service Commission ('MPSC') on the basis of a requisition made by the State Government, the Government of Manipur, issued an advertisement No.2/2010 dated 25.11.2010 for appointment to 138 posts under 6(six) categories of posts, namely, (1) Manipur Civil Service Grade-II, (2) Manipur Police Service Grade-II, (3) Manipur Finance Service Grade-III, (4) Sub-Deputy Collector, (5) Manipur Secretariat Service Category-V and (6) Election Officer. The process for recruitment for these posts by conducting the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 ('Preliminary Examination, 2010') under the "Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010" ('Examination Rules') was initiated by the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioners applied for the said advertised posts. The petitioners, having found eligible as per the aforesaid advertisement, were issued their respective Admit Cards and appeared in the Preliminary Examination, 2010 which was held on 11.9.2011. The result of the Preliminary Examination, 2010 was declared on 24.9.2011. By the aforesaid publication of the result, a total number of 725 candidates were declared as qualified for taking part in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2010 which is scheduled to commence from 10.1.2012. 5. The case of the petitioners is that after taking part in the aforesaid Preliminary Examination, 2010, the petitioners found that the question sets in the form of Booklets A, B, C and D of the Preliminary Examination, 2010 suffered from numerous defects and irregularities. 5. The case of the petitioners is that after taking part in the aforesaid Preliminary Examination, 2010, the petitioners found that the question sets in the form of Booklets A, B, C and D of the Preliminary Examination, 2010 suffered from numerous defects and irregularities. The petitioners State that after getting the necessary relevant information from the Manipur Public Service Commission through Right to Information Act, 2005 (the RTI Act'), the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing/setting aside the result of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 which was published on 24.9.2011. 6. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have raised several grounds in challenging the aforesaid result of the Preliminary Examination, 2010. 7. The first contention of the petitioners is that out of the total 200 questions given in every Booklet, in respect of as many as 7( seven) questions, the key answers provided are wrong. The petitioners state that out of the aforesaid 7(seven) wrong key answers, the Manipur Public Service Commission has admitted in respect of the 3(three) questions and accordingly, have taken corrective measures only in respect of the said 3(three) questions. 8. The petitioners contend that since the MPSC has not taken any corrective measures in respect of the remaining 4(four) questions where the key answers are wrong, the petitioners, who have done well in the aforesaid examination, have been prejudiced by denial by at least 6 marks, as each of the questions carry 1.5 marks. The petitioners, therefore, contended that they have been deprived of at least 6 marks and in the process also, certain undeserving candidates have been included in the aforesaid list of successful candidates declared by the MPSC in place of the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioner that they have been denied the right to be included in the list of successful candidates, though they have correctly answered those questions. 9. In this regard, the petitioners have pointed out the aforesaid 4(four) questions regarding which, according to them, the key answers have been shown to be wrong. It is the contention of the petitioner that they have been denied the right to be included in the list of successful candidates, though they have correctly answered those questions. 9. In this regard, the petitioners have pointed out the aforesaid 4(four) questions regarding which, according to them, the key answers have been shown to be wrong. The following 4(four) questions as found in the Booklet-A are given below : Q. No. in Booklet A with Page Number in the writ petition Answer Key for Booklet A as provided by MPSC (Annexure 5A) Correct Questions/Answers according to the petitioners Q. No. 26 Page 36 Which event can be said to have marked the entry of Indian women to public space? (A) Non-Cooperation Movement (B) Quit India Movement (C) Swadeshi Movement C. Swadeshi Movement D. Civil Disobedience Movement (Indian Freedom Struggle- by Bipinchandra & ors. Penguin Publication) (D) Civil Disobedience Movement Q.No.184 Page 55 India's GDP grew by 8.5 per cent in 2010-2011 due to a strong performance by the sector. (A) Industrial (B) Power (C) Mining (D) Agricultural Q. No. 189 Page 56 Which of the following missiles was inducted into the Armed Forces by DRDO? (A) Agni II (B) Agni III (C) Agni I (D) Agni IV Q.No. 151 Page 52 Economy Socialist pattern comes through (A) free economy (B) mixed economy (C) public economy (D) None of the above A. Industrial C. Agni I B. Mixed Economy D. Agricultural (Page No. 178 of the writ petition) Agni I, Agni II, Agni III (Page No. 172 of the writ petition) C. Public Economy The aforesaid 4(four) questions are given under different SI. Nos. in other Question Booklets-B, C, and D and as such, may not be repeated herein again. As stated above, each of the aforesaid questions carry 1.5 marks and as such, carry a total of 6 marks. Nos. in other Question Booklets-B, C, and D and as such, may not be repeated herein again. As stated above, each of the aforesaid questions carry 1.5 marks and as such, carry a total of 6 marks. The petitioners have pointed out that respective cut-off marks in respect of various categories of candidates have been given by the MPSC themselves in their affidavit-in-opposition as follows: "Category Cut Off/Qualifying Marks (a) Unreserved (b) OBC(Meitei) (c) OBC (Meitei Pangal) (d) ST (e) SC (f) Person with Disability : (i) Locomotor (ii) Hearing Impairment (iii) Visual Impairment 169.5 159 148 153 160.5 162 133.5 88.5" The petitioners state that in respect of Shri Homeshwor Nameirakpam, the petitioner No.4, he had obtained information from the MPSC through RTI Act that he had obtained a total mark of 168 whereas the cut-off mark for general or de-reserved is/was 169.5 marks. It is the contention of the petitioners that even if the petitioner No.4 is given mark in respect of only one of the aforesaid four questions which he had correctly answered, he would have come within the aforesaid cut-off mark and as such would be qualified for appearing in the subsequent main examination scheduled to be held on 10.1.2012. The petitioners, therefore, contended that even though the petitioners had given the correct answers, they have been denied of the 1.5 marks each for every question because of the wrong key answers. As such they have been excluded from the aforesaid list of successful candidates. 10. The second contention of the petitioners is with regard to the manner by which the aforesaid preliminary examination was conducted. The petitioners have drawn attention of this court to the instruction contained in the Admit Cards furnished to the candidates (Annexure A/2 collectively), more particularly with reference to Instruction No.7(c). For the purpose of easy reference, the entire Instruction No.7 is reproduced hereinbelow : "7. Answer Sheet Particulars (a) Write in black ball point pen (i) Roll Number, (ii) Question Booklet Series Code, (iii) Question Booklet No. and (iv) Examination Centre Code at the space provided for the purpose in the answer sheet at the top. (b) All corrections and changes in writing the roll number must be initialed by you as well as by the invigilator and countersigned by the supervisor. (b) All corrections and changes in writing the roll number must be initialed by you as well as by the invigilator and countersigned by the supervisor. (c) Do not write your name or anything other than the specified items of information asked for on the answer sheet. (d) Do not fold or mutilate or damage or put any extraneous marking in the answer sheet. The petitioners contend that it has been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid instruction not to write the name or anything on the answer script. However, at the time of writing the examination, the petitioners were asked to put signatures on the answer sheets, a copy of which has been annexed to the Additional affidavit-in-opposition filed by the petitioners on 15.12.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that since the candidates have been asked to put their signatures on the answer sheets, there is no secrecy involved in the entire examination process and the identities of the candidates have been revealed thereby vitiating the entire examination process. The petitioners vehemently contend that it is the cardinal principle of competitive examination that there should be absolute secrecy to the identity of the candidates, which has not been done in the present instance and as such, the entire preliminary examination conducted by the MPSC is vitiated and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with by this court. 11. The petitioners also contend that there was total non-application of mind by the examiners and the by the Manipur Public Service Commission. In this connection, the petitioners has pointed out that as many as 24 questions, i.e., from Q. 146 to 169 of the Question Booklet-B series were found to have been downloaded from a website namely, http:P/cbseadda.blogsport.com2011/05/cbsc-science-quize.html without any modification and correction of even the wrong questions which exist in the website. 12. The petitioners point out that out of the aforesaid 24 questions, Question No. 167 was also found to be erroneous. The Q. No. 167 as found in the Question Booklet-B series is as follows : "Q. 167. Which form of phosphorus is used in safety metals? (A) Red phosphorus (B) While phosphorus (C) Yellow phosphorus (D) Black phosphorus." The petitioners state that instead of "safety metals", it should be "safety matches". The Q. No. 167 as found in the Question Booklet-B series is as follows : "Q. 167. Which form of phosphorus is used in safety metals? (A) Red phosphorus (B) While phosphorus (C) Yellow phosphorus (D) Black phosphorus." The petitioners state that instead of "safety metals", it should be "safety matches". Accordingly, the petitioners submit that the Manipur Public Service Commission have not taken appropriate care in the framing of the questions which is clearly evident from the above facts of downloading from an existing website and that too without making necessary corrections which is clearly indicative of the non-application of mind by the Manipur Public Service Commission/Examiners. 13. The petitioners also have made a serious charge of leakage of question papers by contending that since the Manipur Public Service Commission had downloaded 24 questions from a particular website, any candidate who was informed of the aforesaid website would have known the questions in advance. Thus, it would amount to leakage of question papers. In view of the above, the aforesaid Preliminary Examination, 2010 can be said to have been vitiated because of the leakage of questions. 14. Petitioners have also made serious allegation of other irregularities and illegalities in the examination process. The petitioners have stated that in the Booklet of questions, a particular page was cut and replaced with fresh page. The contention of the petitioners is that since the aforesaid replacement of the paper in the question Booklet by way of cutting and pasting would involve about 13,000 Booklets considering the number of applicants, the aforesaid exercise would invariably involve a large number of persons and as such, the secrecy regarding the question papers would have been seriously compromised. The petitioners questioned the very need for replacing the papers in the question Booklet inasmuch as, if the same was done to replace wrong questions, even in the newly replaced page in the question Booklet, errors still remained. For example, in cut and pasted page of Booklet-A, Q. No. 181 which is also found as Q. No.45 in series B and Q. No.92 in series C and Q. No.140 in series D, the question was still wrong. Q. No.181 of Booklet-A is reproduced here-in-below : "181. The former President of which nation was sentenced, along with his wife, to 35 years in prison after a trial in absentia? Q. No.181 of Booklet-A is reproduced here-in-below : "181. The former President of which nation was sentenced, along with his wife, to 35 years in prison after a trial in absentia? (A) Egypt (B) Syria (C) Vietnam (D) Nigeria" According to the petitioners, the correct answer is Tunisia, which is not found in any of the choice available in the question set and has relied on the report of the "Reuters" [vide Annexure A/5(Colly) to the writ petition] to substantiate this charge. 15. The petitioners have also pointed that in respect of Booklet bearing No. 13261, page Nos. 25 and 26 were repeated without page Nos.23 and 24, which clearly shows that Manipur Public Service Commission were totally negligent and which also shows non-application of mind at the time of preparation and compilation of the question papers. 16. Apart from the aforesaid alleged irregularities pointed out by the petitioners, the petitioners also has stated that even though as per plan of examination as provided under Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010, the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination has to be 5(five) times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled up in the year in various services and posts. In the present case, since the number of post advertised was 138, the number of candidates eligible to be considered for appearing in the main examination would be 690. However, contrary to the aforesaid provision of the Examination Rules, the Manipur Public Service Commission had declared a total of 725 candidates to be eligible for appearing in the main examination which is 35 numbers in excess, which according to the petitioners, has been done in order to accommodate certain favorite candidates. 17. Therefore, Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid irregularities and illegalities committed in the examination process, the result of the preliminary examination declared by the Manipur Public Service Commission vide notification dated 24.9.2011 is liable to be quashed and a fresh preliminary examination be directed to be held. 18. On the other hand, countering the above allegations and charges, Shri H.NK. 18. On the other hand, countering the above allegations and charges, Shri H.NK. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Manipur Public Service Commission has contended that it has been clearly provided in the instruction on the first page of every Question Booklet, particularly at Instruction No. 3 that the candidates must check the question Booklet and ensure that it contains all the questions and see that no page is missing or repeated. In case any candidate finds any defect in the Question Booklet or in the answer sheets, the candidate must get it replaced immediately. In view of the above clear instruction, the allegation that in some question Booklets some pages are repeated or are missing cannot considered inasmuch as it was the responsibility of the candidate to point out such missing defects in the question Booklet and to get it replaced at the earliest. If the same was not done, the Manipur Public Service Commission could not be faulted with. 19. It was also contended by the Manipur Public Service Commission that it has been clearly mentioned in the Instructions given in the Admit Card, particularly, with reference to Instruction No.7 in the Admit Cards issued to the candidates not to write the name or anything other than the specified items of information asked for on the answer sheet. Therefore, it was very clear that wherever the name of the candidate was required to be put, it had to be put. In the answer sheet, it has been clearly mentioned in the bottom portion that the candidates had to put their signatures and as such, there was no violation of any instruction which was already made known to the candidates in advance. As such, it was contended by the MPSC that there was no violation of the instructions and deviation in the examination process. 20. As regards the charge of the petitioners that putting signatures of the candidates in the answer sheets would disclose the identity of the candidates and in the process, the confidentiality of the candidates and the examination process would be compromised, it has been contended on behalf of the Manipur Public Service Commission that the examination system adopted in the preliminary examination is not a conventional one. It is clear from the answer sheets that the candidates were simply to put dots by blue or black ball point pen against the respective spaces provided in the answer sheets and since the answer sheets are not to be hand-written except by way of putting blue or black dots as required, there would be no knowing as to whose answer sheets it will be, in the event of any denial by any candidate. It is to ensure that the answer scripts are easily identified in case of any dispute. It is the contention of the Manipur Public Service Commission that by the nature of the examination system adopted by the Manipur Public Service Commission in the Preliminary Examination, the answers are not to be hand-written by the candidates and the evaluation of the answers is to be done by computer and not by any human examiner, as such there will be no scope for any manipulation. Therefore, even if the names of the candidates are shown in the answer sheets and the identity of the candidates are disclosed, this will not affect the assessment inasmuch the same is to be done by the computer. Therefore, it has been submitted on behalf of the Manipur Public Service Commission that the question of compromising with the confidentiality of the examination does not arise as it is not conventional examination but is computer based assessment and the Manipur Public Service Commission has taken all the care and precaution to ensure that there is no manipulation of the answer sheets of the candidates and as such, the charge of the petitioners that examination is vitiated because of the disclosure of the identity of the candidates is not tenable. 21. As regards the allegation about leakage of question, the Manipur Public Service Commission has contended that the aforesaid website mentioned by the petitioners is only one of such source from which the question has been prepared and this particular website was not owned by the Manipur Public Service Commission and the petitioners have not also made any allegation that the Manipur Public Service Commission had disclosed the source of the website to any candidate and as such, it cannot be said that the question has been leaked. 22. 22. The Manipur Public Service Commission also contended that all the questions were set by an expert team of highly qualified and experienced persons and at every stage of process of preparing the question Booklets, they had taken all reasonable efforts and cautions under the supervision of the MPSC. It is also contended that wherever mistakes were detected necessary steps were taken to rectify the same. Cutting and pasting as found in the Booklet was resorted to rectify such mistake and this did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners, nor could have cause any prejudice. 23. The MPSC also has stated that on the detection of 3 wrong key answers, MPSC had taken necessary corrective measures and on 26.9.2011, the MPSC had notified that the marks secured by candidates is based on the 197 questions and marks allotted to wrong questions bearing no. 80,103 and 181 in respect of Question Booklet Series-'A', Question Nos. 45, 144 and 167 in respect of Question Booklet Series-'B', Question Nos. 14,92 and 191 in respect of Question Booklet Series-'C' and Question Nos.47, 70 and 148 in respect of Question Booklet Series-'D' were not counted in the preparation of cut off mark for selection of candidates for the Main Examination. The aforesaid notification is to be found at Annexure R/l to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the MPSC. Regarding the remaining 4 questions of which the petitioners claimed that wrong key answers have been given, MPSC vehemently contends that these are disputed questions of fact and this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not enter into this disputed questions of facts as to whether a particular key answer is right or wrong which should be best left to the experts. In this regard, the counsel for the MPSC has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in President, Poornathrayisha Seva Sangham v. Thilakan Kavenal, (2005) 2 SCC 689 . 24. MPSC contends that as far as MPSC is concerned, necessary corrective measures have been made in respect of the wrong answers as stated above and there is no other wrong question and answer. 25. It has also been contended on behalf of the MPSC that the petitioners after having participated in the examination, they cannot turn around now and plead that the examination process was wrong. 25. It has also been contended on behalf of the MPSC that the petitioners after having participated in the examination, they cannot turn around now and plead that the examination process was wrong. Counsel for the MPSC has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 . It has also been contended on behalf of the MPSC that the petitioners have never preferred any representation or raised any objection soon after the examination was held regarding the process adopted by the MPSC. They have remained quiet and only after the result was declared and when it was found that the petitioners' names were not included amongst the successful candidates, they have challenged now in the present writ petition, which they cannot as they are estopped from doing so now. The respondents have also contended that the petitioners have never challenged the instructions given in the Admit Card. 26. It has been also contended on behalf of the MPSC that there is no specific allegation that any particular individual had been given undue benefit or had derived undue benefits under the aforesaid system of examination adopted by the MPSC and in absence of an allegation, the petitioners could not make any vague or general charge that the examination system is vitiated. It has also been contended that the allegations of the petitioners are based on surmises and not based on any concrete materials or evidence. 27. The respondent, MPSC had also contended that the prayer of the petitioners for cancelling the result of the preliminary examination cannot be entertained at all in view of the fact that successful candidates have not been impleaded as respondents in the present case and as such, the present writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, without hearing the successful candidates, no order could be passed by this court prejudicial to the interest of the successful candidates and in this connection, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has referred to certain judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn., (2004) 2 SCC 76 , Shakur Bashi Shamson Bhumi Sudhar Samiti v. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi, (2007) 3 SCC 53, State of Assam v. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 408. 28. Governor, NCT of Delhi, (2007) 3 SCC 53, State of Assam v. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 408. 28. The respondents have also contended that the petitioners have no vested right to approach this court as they have not be able to show any subsisting right which has been infringed upon by the MPSC and as such, no Mandamus could be issued in absence of any enforceable right of the petitioners. The leaned senior counsel appearing for the MPSC had relied upon a number of decisions of the Supreme Court to substantiate his contention. 29. The counsel for the MPSC accordingly, has submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is based purely on ground of sympathy and surmises and is liable to be rejected. 30. Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent No.2 has also supported the submission made by the leaned senior counsel appearing for the MPSC. 31. In reply to the contentions of the MPSC, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have urged that there is no need to implead the selected candidates inasmuch as a prima facie case of gross malpractice has already been established. He submits that wherever any gross malpractice is present in any recruitment process, impleadment of the successful candidates will not be necessary and to buttress his case, has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda, AIR 1996 SC 2552 . 32. The petitioners further contended that the principles of estoppel or acquiescence as urged by the counsel for the respondents will not be applicable inasmuch as the petitioners are not challenging the procedure but the fact of non-compliance of the procedure by the MPSC themselves and illegalities committed in the process which they came to know only after the examination was completed. Mr. Sahu contends that since there was clear instruction not to write the name of the candidates on the answer sheets, the direction to sing on the answer sheets is clearly in contravention of their instructions. MPSC should have scrupulously followed their instruction not to write the names of the candidates. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Rajkumar and Ors. v. Shakti Roy and Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 527 . 33. MPSC should have scrupulously followed their instruction not to write the names of the candidates. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Rajkumar and Ors. v. Shakti Roy and Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 527 . 33. The petitioners also submit that instead of writing the names of the candidates on the answer sheets another system of coding and de-coding should have been adopted as is done in other places so as to maintain the confidentiality and secrecy of the candidature in the examination. The learned counsel has reiterated that even if there was no real malpractice, the fact that there was real likelihood of malpractice because of the downloading of questions from a particular website and also because of disclosure of the candidature, would be sufficient to vitiate the examination. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 417 . 34. The petitioners also submit that there has been no delay in approaching this court as they were seeking necessary information from the MPSC through Right to Information Act which was furnished late and as such, there was no delay or laches on the part of the petitioners to approach this court and accordingly, has urged this court to interfere with the result of the preliminary examination which, according to the petitioners, is vitiated on the grounds urged as stated earlier. 35. On consideration of the contentions and rival contentions of the parties, the following issues have emerged for decision of this court: (i) As contended by the petitioners whether the Preliminary Examination conducted by the MPSC would be vitiated on the ground that there has been leakage of questions? The petitioners had contended that since 24(twenty-four) questions were downloaded form the website which could be accessed to by anybody, the same would amount to leakage of questions. (ii) Whether the cut and paste of a page in the question booklet would amount to an irregularity so as to vitiate the examination? (iii) Whether because of the non-rectification wrong answers to the 4(four) questions as claimed by the petitioners the examination would be vitiated? (iv) Whether there was non-application of mind by the question setters/MPSC so as to render the examination bad in law? (iii) Whether because of the non-rectification wrong answers to the 4(four) questions as claimed by the petitioners the examination would be vitiated? (iv) Whether there was non-application of mind by the question setters/MPSC so as to render the examination bad in law? (v) Whether because of the declaration of excess number of candidates by 35 candidates than the stipulated number which is 5(five) times the number of posts advertised, the examination is also liable to be set aside? (vi) Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present writ petition or whether the present writ petition is maintainable or not? (vii) Whether the writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties? (viii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief claimed in the writ petition? 36. While dealing with these issues, it is to be noted that even though the petitioners have made the allegation that some of the questions have been leaked as these were downloaded from the website, no allegation has been made by the petitioners in the writ petition stating that the website was made known to any of the candidates by the MPSC prior to the examination. In other words, there is no allegation that any of the candidates had prior information of the aforesaid website from which the questions were downloaded, which in the event of prior knowledge, a case of leakage of questions could have been made out. 37. It is to be noted that the questions were prepared from various sources and aforesaid website is only one such source. Even though the aforesaid website may have been accessible to anybody, unless and until such an information is given that questions available in the said Website could be used in the Preliminary Examination, it cannot be said that the questions have been leaked out. 38. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that any question setter or the MPSC could have informed any candidate about the aforesaid website for the benefit of any particular candidates. There was distinct possibility of the same and cannot be ruled out. This contention of Shri B.P. Sahu cannot be accepted, in the present case, no allegations have been made in the writ petition that such disclosures by any member of the MPSC or any question setter had been made to any candidate or any other person. There was distinct possibility of the same and cannot be ruled out. This contention of Shri B.P. Sahu cannot be accepted, in the present case, no allegations have been made in the writ petition that such disclosures by any member of the MPSC or any question setter had been made to any candidate or any other person. The examiners who are appointed by the MPSC are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the sources of the questions. Their integrity cannot be questioned unless specific allegations with prima facie materials are shown by the petitioners. Merely because there was a possibility of such disclosure cannot lead to any inference or conclusion that there was disclosure so as to render the examination bad. It cannot be baldly claimed that the questions have been leaked out merely because of the fact that 24(twenty-four) questions were downloaded from a particular website. There has to be more specific pleadings and allegations with credible material and not mere surmises or assumptions. Therefore, this court cannot accept the submission of the counsel of the petitioners that the questions have been leaked out merely because of the fact that some questions were downloaded from a particular website, in the absence of any pleading with specific allegation of any wrong doing. 39. It is to be noted that there may be other sources of the questions which may be a text book or any other sample question papers or from any other competitive examination. Merely, because some questions have been borrowed from other sources, it cannot be said to have been leaked unless the source is disclosed. 40. Coming to the next contention that because of a cut and paste of a page in the question booklet by the MPSC in respect of a large number of question booklets, the confidentiality of the questions was not maintained also cannot be accepted. If the MPSC could compile the large number of booklets by maintaining confidentiality, it cannot be stated that merely because a particular page has been replaced by the MPSC, the confidentiality has been compromised unless a specific allegation is made by the petitioners or by stating the particular details as to how the confidentiality was violated. In the absence of any specific averment or allegations, the said contention also of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 41. In the absence of any specific averment or allegations, the said contention also of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 41. As regards the contention of the petitioners regarding the wrong key answers, this needs to be considered by the court keeping into mind various other aspects. The petitioners had claimed that there are 7(seven) questions of which wrong answers were given in the key answers. The MPSC had already admitted to the incorrect key answers in respect of only 3(three) questions. However, in respect of the remaining 4(four) questions, the MPSC has claimed that there is no such mistake and if at all there be any element of doubt, it would be within the realm of disputed question of fact as the questions and answers are determined by the experts in the respective fields and this court exercising writ jurisdiction under article 226 may not enter to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact. 42. Learned counsel appearing for the MPSC in this connection has relied on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as referred to above and submitted that the High Court should not go into the disputed questions of facts. 43. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of Supreme Court rendered in Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P., (1984) 2 SCC 319 in which the Supreme Court has stated that: "if the key and answer, (i.e., the answer which the paper-setter has supplied to the University as the correct answer and which has been fed with the computer) is shown to be demonstrably wrong, that to say, such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct and if the answer given by the student is correct if regard be had to acknowledged text books or books which the student was expected to read and consult before appearing for the test it would be unfair to penalize the student for not giving an answer which accords with the "key-answer" that is to say with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." 44. In this regard, we will refer to the 4(four) questions which the petitioners have claimed that wrong answers have been given in the key answer. In this regard, we will refer to the 4(four) questions which the petitioners have claimed that wrong answers have been given in the key answer. In respect of Question No. 26 in Booklet-A as to which event can be said to have marked the entry of Indian women to public space, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on a book written by renowned historian Bipinchandra and others and published by "Penguin" Publication. In the said book, it is mentioned at page no. 283 that, for Indian women the Civil Disobedience Movement was the most liberating experience to date and can be truly be said to have marked their entry into public space. The petitioners contended that the aforesaid book is a very popular and widely read book amongst the students of History and the candidates appearing in the competitive examinations and authored by an imminent historian on Modern India. Accordingly, the petitioners contend that the answer should be "Civil Disobedience Movement", even though in the answer key it has been given as "Swadeshi Movement". 45. This court is of the prima facie opinion that the writings of the aforesaid widely read book by a renowned historian cannot be easily brushed aside. 46. As regards, the Question No. 184 in Booklet-A as to whether India's GDP Growth by 8.5% in 2010-11 was due to strong performance by agricultural, Industrial or other sector mentioned in the question, the answer given in the answer key is "Industrial". In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a magazine which has been annexed at page 178 of the writ petition which stated that India's GDP grew by 8.5% in 2010-11 due to a strong performance by the agricultural sector. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioners that even if the industrial sector is also the correct answer, it could be equally true of the agricultural sector. In other words, if a candidate gives the answer as agricultural sector the answer cannot be wrong. 47. In respect of the Question No. 184 in Booklet A as to which of the missiles was inducted into the Armed Forces by the DRDO, the answer given in the answer key is only Agni-I, even though Agni-II and III were also inducted into the Armed Forces by the DRDO. 47. In respect of the Question No. 184 in Booklet A as to which of the missiles was inducted into the Armed Forces by the DRDO, the answer given in the answer key is only Agni-I, even though Agni-II and III were also inducted into the Armed Forces by the DRDO. Accordingly, if any candidate gives the other answer of Agni-II and III, which are also options available, he cannot be penalized as Agni-II and III were also inducted by the DRDO. In this regard, the petitioners have also relied on an extract from the "Frontline" Magazine, a very respected journal as well as the press release by the Press Trust of India (PTI). This court, therefore, finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 48. Regarding the 4th question, Question No. 151 in Booklet A, that is, whether Socialist Pattern comes through free economy, mix economy or public economy or none of these, the answer given in the answer key is "mixed economy". The petitioners contended the correct answer would be "public economy". 49. This court is of the opinion that anybody who is aware of the "Socialist Pattern" would find both "mixed economy" and "public economy" to be correct inasmuch as "Socialist Pattern" is to be found both in the "mixed economy" as well as in the "public economy". Thus, this court is of the opinion that even if the answers to the aforesaid 4(four) questions are treated to be a disputed question of fact as claimed by the MPSC, any body with reasonably sound knowledge on the aforesaid subjects would find that the answers projected by the petitioners are also correct. On this aspect, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case that the answers given in the key-answer in respect of the aforesaid 4(four) questions are not correct. Thus, this contention of the petitioners find force and if all the answers claimed by the petitioners are found to be true, of which there is high probability, in that event, if any of the petitioners have not been given marks for giving the right answer, such of the petitioners would be deprived of the additional marks. 50. Thus, this contention of the petitioners find force and if all the answers claimed by the petitioners are found to be true, of which there is high probability, in that event, if any of the petitioners have not been given marks for giving the right answer, such of the petitioners would be deprived of the additional marks. 50. It has been pointed out by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 4 who belongs to the unreserved category, had obtained the total marks of 168, as informed by the MPSC. In view of the above, if the said petitioner No. 4 is given marks for the correct answer given by him in respect of aforesaid four questions, he would be covered by the cut off marks and as such he would be qualified to appear in the Mains Examination. This contention of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside inasmuch as if any of the petitioners comes within the cut-off marks in their respective categories by virtue of giving correct answers in respect of four above mentioned questions, they cannot be denied the rights to appear in the Mains Examination. 51. Considering the facts of the case as discussed above and also in view of the fact that there is a high probability of the answers given by the petitioners in respect of the 4(four) questions to be correct, this court is of the opinion that the MPSC may have to relook into the key-answers in respect of the aforesaid four questions. Accordingly, the MPSC would be required to form a Committee of experts relating to the aforesaid four questions and re-determine the correct answers in respect of the aforesaid 4(four) questions. Upon determination of the correct answers in respect of the four questions, the MPSC would be required to re-evaluate the answers of the present writ petitioners so as to ascertain if any of the petitioners had given correct answers to the aforesaid four questions in the light of the review answer key and reassess the marks of the petitioners. If any of the petitioners, upon such reassessment comes within the cut-off marks in their respective categories, they shall be deemed to have been also qualified for appearing in the Main Examination. If any of the petitioners, upon such reassessment comes within the cut-off marks in their respective categories, they shall be deemed to have been also qualified for appearing in the Main Examination. While doing so, it may be clarified that this exercise will be confined only in respect of the present ll(eleven) petitioners inasmuch as it is stated by the counsel for the MPSC that as on date there is no proposal to change the date of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination which has been scheduled to be held on 10.1.2012. This court has kept in mind that if this exercise is to be extended to other remaining candidates at this stage, it may cause undue delay in the conduct of the Mains Examination and, thus, disturb the examination schedule which would not be in public interest. This court has also kept in mind this fact that this exercise cannot be extended to other candidates who have not approached this court or have not raised any grievance as has been done by the petitioners, for the door of the court should be kept open only for the alert and vigilant persons and not for those who are fence sitters or are sleeping over their rights. 52. As regards, the contentions of the petitioners that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the question setters/MPSC merely because they have downloaded some questions from the website or certain mistakes still remained in the question Booklets cannot be also accepted. In view of the fact that the questions setters have to look for various sources including the websites to frame the questions and answers also in view of the fact that the MPSC has already undertaken exercise to rectify such mistakes which came to their notice, it cannot be stated that there has been non-application of mind. While absence of any mistake in the question papers in any competitive examination would be ideal and desirable, yet creeping in of certain mistakes as pointed out by the petitioners as discussed above cannot lead to the inference that there was non-application of mind by the examiners and MPSC. There were as many as 200 questions in the Preliminary Examination of which the MPSC had rectified in respect of three questions and the petitioners have been able to point out certain mistakes in respect of only four questions. There were as many as 200 questions in the Preliminary Examination of which the MPSC had rectified in respect of three questions and the petitioners have been able to point out certain mistakes in respect of only four questions. Therefore, the mistakes in respect of seven questions, (assuming the four questions also to be incorrect) cannot lead to a conclusion that there was non-application of mind by the examiners/MPSC. Accordingly, this contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 53. As regards of the contention of the petitioners that as there has been a declaration of the successful candidates in excess of the stipulated number by 35 candidates, it cannot be stated that the examination has been vitiated. In this regard, it may be mentioned that the MPSC in their affidavit has clarified that there are many candidates who had scored equal marks and since they had also scored marks within the cut off marks, their candidatures had to be also considered. Accordingly, the number of successful candidates have increased by 35. This court is of the opinion that the aforesaid explanation is reasonable and nothing has been brought to the notice of the court that any other undeserving candidates have been included. Accordingly, this court also cannot accept the contention of the petitioners. 54. As regards the issue of estoppable raised by the counsel for the respondents, this contention has to be examined from various perspectives. It is to be noted that in the relief claimed by the petitioners no challenge has been put to the examination process, though they have indirectly done so. The contention of the respondents/MPSC that the petitioners having participated in the examination and having not raised any objection about the examination process during the examination or soon thereafter, cannot be allowed to challenge the procedure adopted by the MPSC in the present writ petition finds merit. This court also has noted that the petitioners had at no point of time, either during the examination or soon thereafter have challenged or questioned the issue of putting their signatures on answer script except by filing this writ petition, that too after more than two months form the date of examination on 11.9.2011. This court also has noted that the petitioners had at no point of time, either during the examination or soon thereafter have challenged or questioned the issue of putting their signatures on answer script except by filing this writ petition, that too after more than two months form the date of examination on 11.9.2011. If the petitioners had really aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the MPSC and were really concerned that the confidentiality of the examination had been compromised by the MPSC by directing the candidates to write their names in the answer scripts, they ought to have immediately or soon after the examination raised the objection rather than wait for the declaration of the result. This court has also taken into consideration the explanation given by the MPSC regarding the requirement for putting the signature of the candidates and in absence of any specific allegation of any wrong doing made in the writ petition, this court is not inclined to hold that the confidentiality has been compromised because of putting of signature by the candidates. However, even if the petitioners are estopped from challenging the examination process, if it cannot be said that they are totally barred from challenging as regards the incorrect answers inasmuch as challenge regarding the wrong key answers can be made only after the examination has been concluded and the key answers are published. Before the publication of the key answers the candidates would have no idea about the correct answers. Accordingly, the petitioners would have a right to approach this court to ventilate their grievances regarding the wrong key answers. 55. As regards the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties raised by the respondents, it is now well settled that the court ought not to proceed with any matter without impleading those persons whose interest may be adversely affected. The Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P, (1984) 4 SCC 251 , held that : "28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties — not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non-joinder of necessary parties." 56. Similarly, in Trldip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768 , the Supreme Court held that, "41. Regarding protection granted to 66 candidates, from the record it is clear that their names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they were selected and appointed in 1998-99. The candidates who were unable to get themselves selected and who raised a grievance and made a complaint before the Tribunal by filing applications ought to have joined them (selected candidates) as respondents in the original application, which was not done. In any case, some of them ought to have been arrayed as respondents in a "representative capacity". That was also not done. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right in holding that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording opportunity of hearing to them, their selection could not be set aside." 57. In any case, some of them ought to have been arrayed as respondents in a "representative capacity". That was also not done. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right in holding that in absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording opportunity of hearing to them, their selection could not be set aside." 57. The aforesaid decisions had been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204 where it has been reiterated that if a person challenges the selection process, successful candidates or at least some of them are necessary parties. 58. In the present case, none of the 725 candidates declared to have successful in the Preliminary Examination has been impleaded and as such the any claim which would adversely affect tiller rights could not be considered by this court, much less allowed, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court as mentioned above. The contention of the petitioners that the successful candidates need not be impleaded as much there has been gross malpractices is not acceptable inasmuch as no such malpractice has been made out which would render the examination vitiated because of the reasons discussed above. 59. Accordingly, the present writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary party and no order can be passed in the present writ petition which would adversely affect the interest of the said successful candidates. 60. Having held that the writ petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in view of the reasons stated above, the last issue to be considered is whether they are entitled to any other relief, even if not specifically claimed. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been able to make a prima facie case in their favour with reference to the issue of wrong answer key, this court is of the opinion that the relief claimed can be moulded to promote justice and prevent miscarriage of justice. As this court has already held that in the event the key answers in respect of the 4(four) questions are found to be wrong as claimed by the petitioner, an injustice will be caused if the petitioners are denied the benefit for giving the correct answers. As this court has already held that in the event the key answers in respect of the 4(four) questions are found to be wrong as claimed by the petitioner, an injustice will be caused if the petitioners are denied the benefit for giving the correct answers. In moulding the relief I draw sustenance from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in RBFRIG Corporation, Mumbai v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, (2011) 3 SCC 573 , where the Supreme Court held that, "19. Article 226 of the Constitution confers powers on the High Court to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. The question, whether any particular relief should be granted under article 226 of the Constitution, depends on the facts of each case. The guiding principle in all cases is promotion of justice and prevention of injustice. 20. In Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679 , this court has held : (SCC pp. 692-93, para 20) "20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." 21. In Dwarka Nath v. ITO AIR 1966 SC 81 , this court pointed out that article 226 is designedly couched in a wide language in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England, such wide language being used to enable the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found and to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country." 61. In the light of the observation, discussion and findings, I hold that the writ petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed for quashing/setting aside the result of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 declared on 24.9.2011 and for a direction to hold the examination afresh. 62. However, by way of moulding the relief, the following directions are issued to the respondent No.2, the Manipur Public Service Commission: (i) The MPSC would immediately constitute a Committee consisting of experts relating the aforesaid four questions and re-determine the correct answer by reviewing the earlier answers in respect of the aforesaid 4(four) questions. (ii) Upon re-determination of the correct answers in respect of the four questions, if any of the key answers is corrected/changed, the MPSC would re-evaluate the answers scripts of the present 11 (eleven) writ petitioners only so as to ascertain if any of the petitioners had given correct answers to the aforesaid four questions in the light of the review answer key and re-assess the marks of the petitioners. (iii) If any of the petitioners, upon such re-assessment, obtains marks within the cut-off marks in their respective categories, he/they shall be deemed to have been qualified for appearing in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010. (iv) The MPSC is to publish the result of the s for said exercise in respect of the 11(eleven) petitioners at the earliest. (v) The aforesaid exercise indicated above under directions (i) to (iii) are to be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3( three) weeks but definitely before the declaration of the results of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010. (vi) In order that the claims of the petitioners can be considered as directed above, they are to be provisionally allowed to appear in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010 scheduled to be held on 10.1.2012 or any such date that may be fixed by the Manipur Public Service Commission. However, their results in the Mains Examination will be declared only after it is ascertained that they or any one of them have/has qualified to appear in the Mains Examination as indicated above. If any of the petitioners is not found to be qualified after the re-assessment in the terms of the directions (i) to (iii) above, their results in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010 would not be declared or acted upon. (vii) It is also clarified again here that the aforesaid exercise contemplated under directions (i) to (iv) will be confined only to the present 11(eleven) petitioners and will not be extended to any other person for the reasons given in this judgment. 63. With the above observations, findings and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Copy of this judgment may be furnished to the Manipur Public Service Commission and other parties today itself. _____________