JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Having unsuccessfully pleaded against the validity of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2012 conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as the Commission), a preparatory segment of the process for recruitment to various posts encompassed therein, the writ petitioners seek redress against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2012 rendered in WP (C) No. 751 of 2010 (Imphal Bench). By the decision impugned, the relief of annulment of the aforementioned examination was declined, though, incidental directions in response to the cavil of incorrect/wrong evaluation of a few answers to the questions had been issued. We have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate for the appellants, Mr. H.N.K. Singh, Senior Advocate for the Manipur Public Service Commission (Imphal) and the learned Government Advocate, Manipur for Respondent No. 2. 2. The issues raised, demand an abridged version of the pleaded facts to provide the backdrop of the debate. The writ appellants (inter-changeably also referred to as the appellants/writ petitioners) along with others had responded to the advertisement No.2/2010 dated 25.11.2010 initiating the process for recruitment to 138 posts enumerated in 6(six) categories as mentioned therein detailing amongst others the conditions of eligibility of the candidates, the phases of their performance evaluation and the general scheme of the conduct thereof in noticeable details. In terms of the modalities set out thereunder, the writ appellants applied for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 in the prescribed form supported by essential testimonials, whereafter, Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 (hereinafter for short referred to as the 'Preliminary Examination') was held on 11.09.2011, in which they appeared. The results of the Preliminary Examination were declared on 24.09.2011 and in all 725 candidates were declared to have passed and thereby adjudged to be eligible to take the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2010 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Main Examination). None of the appellants however was declared to have passed. In the above factual premise, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to raze the Preliminary Examination, repudiating it to be vitiated by incurable illegalities rendering the same to be non est. The assailments discernible from their pleadings are paraphrased as herein-below: (a) 24 questions (Question Nos. None of the appellants however was declared to have passed. In the above factual premise, they invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to raze the Preliminary Examination, repudiating it to be vitiated by incurable illegalities rendering the same to be non est. The assailments discernible from their pleadings are paraphrased as herein-below: (a) 24 questions (Question Nos. 146 to 169 of set - B) had been copied and pasted en bloc from a website i.e. http:P/cbseadda.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbse-science-quize.html out of which one question namely Question No. 167 was wrong. This demonstrated a high probability of leakage of questions to the advantage of the candidates whom the Commission was inclined to favour. (b) 11 questions were copied and pasted from a magazine "News and Events" (August, 2011 issue) with errors without any correction and lifted in bulk from the said magazine. This also suggested a strong possibility of leakage of the said questions. (c) Questions in pages No. 25 - 26 of Booklet -A, pages No. 5 - 6 of Booklet - B, pages No. 11 - 12 of Booklet - C, pages No. 19 - 20 of Booklet - D were cut and replaced by pasting manually. Not only this evidently compromised with the mandate of secrecy in such a process, out of 30 questions involved, one was evidently wrong. (d) In Booklet 13261 (series - A), pages 25 and 26 (1 sheet) had been repeated of which one sheet was cut and pasted and the other was as originally included. Page No. 23-24(1 sheet) was missing in the Booklet. Thus, whereas, the questions in pages 25 and 26 were repeated those in pages 23 - 24 were missing. (e) Wrong answers (in the key answers) had been provided against 7 questions, namely- Question No. 45, 53, 167, 48, 15, 90 and 144 of Booklet - B series (for instance). The same questions and answers appeared at different serial numbers in the other Booklet of series - A, C & D. The Commission, though, had admitted the mistake vis-a-vis three questions, they omitted to notice the same qua the remaining 4 carrying six marks. (f) The number of successful candidates as declared was in excess of the prescribed ratio of 1:5. (f) The number of successful candidates as declared was in excess of the prescribed ratio of 1:5. Though, having regard to the number of posts involved, it should have been limited to 690, the number of candidates who were declared to have passed the Preliminary Examination was 725. (g) The Candidates were required to put their signatures at the bottom of the answers sheets, though it was clearly opposed to and in violation of instruction No.7(C) in the Admit Card framed by the Commission. This insistence for the signature of the candidates was in apparent departure from the norm to the contrary invoked in competitive examinations as shield of confidentiality and guarantee against any possible abuse of such disclosure. The petitioners sought to reinforce these imputations on the basis of the documents related thereto. They, in particular, brought on record by additional pleadings, a photocopy of a sample page answer script obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. The Commission in its pleaded response questioned the maintainability of the challenge on the ground of want of necessary parties, the successful candidates not having been impleaded in the lis. While generally refuting the allegations, it asserted that the conduct of the Preliminary Examination had been strictly in accordance with its canonical prescriptions. It pleaded that all the questions were set by an expert team of highly qualified and experienced persons and that at every stage of the process of preparing the Question Booklets, they had ensured all reasonable human efforts and caution under its supervision. According to the Commission, the doubt of leakage of questions is "unreasonable" as the same had been collected and prepared from various sources and means. While emphasizing that with the advancement of information technology and the availability of the internet facility, every information on any field, theme, topic of knowledge and activity in the contemporaneous world is accessible, it dismissed the apprehension of leakage of questions as wholly misplaced. The answering respondent averred that not only the website referred to by the petitioners was not that of the Commission, the collection of questions therefrom does not violate any examination norm formulated by it. According to the Commission, in absence of any concrete and clear-cut instance of manipulation/malpractice, the imputation to that effect was apparently imaginary and rejectable as a surmise and conjuncture. According to the Commission, in absence of any concrete and clear-cut instance of manipulation/malpractice, the imputation to that effect was apparently imaginary and rejectable as a surmise and conjuncture. It however admitted that the pages 25 and 26 of Booklet Series - A referred to in the writ petition had to be replaced by new pages as the earlier ones were defective. The Commission however pleaded that by the substitution of the original pages, the petitioners and/or the candidates did not suffer any prejudice or injustice. The answering respondent, however, admitted that out of 7 questions/answers mentioned in the writ petition, 3 were ascertained to be wrong and thus while computing the aggregate marks of the candidates those had been excluded. The Commission justified the number of successful candidates by referring to the different cut-off marks for the various categories of reserved and unreserved posts contending that many of them (candidates) having secured some marks, they also had to be included, whereby the number had increased. While contending that the petitioners having participated in the examination without any demur they were estopped from turning around and challenging the validity thereof, the Commission maintained that they having failed to avail the opportunity otherwise provided to them as per the Clause - III of the instructions to the candidates, no interference was warranted, lest the successful candidates be prejudiced, more so in the face of the unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court. The Commission dismissed their remonstrance as maliciously false and hypothetical and pleaded for rejection thereof with exemplary cost. 4. The learned Single Judge by the decision oppugned declined to interfere with the Preliminary Examination, but issued directions to the Commission to (i) Constitute a Committee consisting of experts to re-determine the correct answers of Question No. 26, 184, 189 and 151 of Booklet-A by reviewing the earlier answers in respect thereof. (ii) Ascertain, if any of the petitioners had given correct answers to these questions in the light of the re-determination so made and re-assess their marks. (iii) Adjudge any or more of the petitioners to be eligible for appearing in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010 if upon the re-assessment, they secure the qualifying marks therefore. (ii) Ascertain, if any of the petitioners had given correct answers to these questions in the light of the re-determination so made and re-assess their marks. (iii) Adjudge any or more of the petitioners to be eligible for appearing in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010 if upon the re-assessment, they secure the qualifying marks therefore. (iv) Publish the results of the petitioners on the completion of the exercise so ordered within a period of 3 (three) weeks and in any case before the declaration of the results of the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010. (v) Allow the petitioners to provisionally appear in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination, 2010 scheduled to be held on 10.01.2012 or any such date as may be fixed. (vi) Declare the results of the petitioners or any one or more of them, in the Main examination if determined to have qualified to appear therein. It was clarified that the exercise ordered was to be confined only to the petitioners. 5. The Commission through an affidavit filed in the writ appeal has apprised this Court that in deference to the above directions the process as ordered had been undertaken and that on the basis of the review made by the Expert Committee, the results of the petitioners have also been declared on 25.01.2012, disclosing that only the appellant No. 4 had been adjudged to be qualified to appear in the Main examination. 6. Mr. Goswami has insistently urged that the Preliminary Examination in the teeth of the demonstrable illegalities, anomalies and inexplicable pitfalls is shorn of any credibility engendering public confidence in it and is thus liable to be adjudged non est in law. Referring to the en bloc incorporation of questions/answers from a website generally accessable to all and sundry and the replacement of two pages of the question booklet by resorting to cut and paste exploit manually, the learned senior counsel maintained that these had seriously undermined the guarantee of confidentiality in a competitive examination of the like involved, thus rendering it unsustainable in law and on facts. According to Mr. Goswami, the sample question of Booklet No. 13261, Series - A revealed that pages 23 and 24 while missing there had been a duplication of pages 25 and 26 containing the same questions, thus belying the Commission's plea of removing the defects therein. According to Mr. Goswami, the sample question of Booklet No. 13261, Series - A revealed that pages 23 and 24 while missing there had been a duplication of pages 25 and 26 containing the same questions, thus belying the Commission's plea of removing the defects therein. The cut and paste phenomenon being clearly decipherable from the original of this question Booklet No. 13261 (candidates being permitted to retain the question papers), such an interference is an irrefutable inroad into the secrecy of the process, so paramount to maintain the sanctity thereof, he urged. The learned Senior Counsel pleaded that such interference with the question paper after the printing thereof having been admitted by the Commission, it is its (Commission's) imperative obligation to disclose from its records the compelling reason therefor, in absence of which the Preliminary Examination ought to be invalidated. As the questions in the original and replaced pages 25 and 26 of the question Booklet are wholly identical, the plea of removal of defects is belied thereby, he urged. The learned Senior Counsel maintained that having regard to the gruelling competition in such examinations, where even a fraction of a mark may decisively tilt the balance in favour or against the candidate, the initiatives to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of the process are an indispensable safeguard to secure the solemnity and trustworthiness thereof and any perceptible breach hazarding a compromise with such assertions is incomprehensible. 7. Referring to Clause 7(7) of the instructions embodied in the admit cards issued for the Preliminary Examination, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that the insistence for the signature of the candidate on the answer-sheet is not only in transgression thereof but also extinctive of the essentiality of confidentiality in a competitive examination for recruitment to public posts. As the stipulation for the signature of the candidates on the answer-script has been in palpable violation of the Commission's own norms as set out in the Admit Card, the plea of estoppel is misconceived, he urged. Mr. Goswami highlighted the background of forsaking the requirement of the signature of a candidate or disclosure or his/her name in the interest of purity of such process and contended that this vice per se has rendered the Preliminary Examination null and void. Mr. Goswami highlighted the background of forsaking the requirement of the signature of a candidate or disclosure or his/her name in the interest of purity of such process and contended that this vice per se has rendered the Preliminary Examination null and void. While contending that the integration of questions/answers in a bulk from other sources depicts total non-application of mind of the question setter(s) and that it is incumbent on the Commission to explain the number of successful candidates in excess of the zone prescribed, Mr. Goswami, dwelt upon the 4 questions, the answers whereof were directed to be re-determined by a Committee. The learned Senior Counsel with reference to the available texts relatable thereto has sought to impress upon us that the answers to Question Nos. 26, 184 and 151 of Booklet-A while had been wrongly re-determined by the Committee, it (the Committee) correctly provided the answer to Question No. 189. He therefore urged that the results of the petitioners even on a fresh exercise as ordered by this Court had not been correctly declared. According to the learned Senior Counsel having regard to the nature of the vitiations in the Preliminary Examination conducted by the Committee impleadment of the successful candidates as necessary parties was uncalled for and thus the plea against the maintainability of the writ petition is misconceived. The following decisions were relied upon to buttress the above assertions. General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad & another vs. A.V.R. Siddhanti & other, AIR 1974 SC 1755 A. Janardhana vs. Union of India & other, AIR 1983 SC 769 Prabodh Verma & other vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & other, AIR 1985 SC 167 B. Prabhakar Rao & other vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & other AIR 1986 SC 210 Krishan Yadav vs. State of Haryana & other, (1994) 4 SCC 165 Pritpal Singh vs. State of Haryana & other, (1994) 5 SCC 695 Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & other vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & other, (1996) 5 SCC 365 Shri Dilip Kumar Dutta vs. State of Tripura & other, (1986) 1 GLR 367 8. Mr. Singh on behalf of the Commission, abiding by its pleaded stand has dismissed as a whole the challenge laid to be baseless and speculative. Mr. Singh on behalf of the Commission, abiding by its pleaded stand has dismissed as a whole the challenge laid to be baseless and speculative. He urged that with the new technology in position dispensing with the manual evaluation of the answers as in the case in hand, the apprehension of want of secrecy or compromise with the measures to ensure the same is wholly misconceived. Referring to the instructions for the candidates on the backside of the answer-sheet the learned Senior counsel contended that the same read with those enumerated in the Admit Card do not reveal any inconsistency to render the requirement of signature of the candidate thereon (answer-sheet) to be violative of any norm prescribed by the Commission. On the other hand, signature of the candidate on the answer-sheet was construed to be necessary so as to preclude him/her from disowning the same in future in a given exigency. Mr. Singh produced a sealed question Booklet to emphasize that interference therewith was an impossibility. Further, as in spite of Clause - III of the question Booklet no objection whatsoever with regard to any missing page or duplication of questions had been raised by the petitioners, they were estopped from urging the same belatedly after two months of the declaration of the results of the Preliminary Examination. While dismissing the contention of non-availability of page 23 and 24 in the question Booklet No. 13261 to be wholly inconsequential as a subsequent act contributing thereto at the individual level was possible, no objection having been raised in this regard by the candidate (s) concerned, the same ought not to be taken note of at this distant point of time, he urged. Mr. Singh submitted on instructions that for reasons pressing and persuasive, the questions had to be printed outside the State and pages 25 and 26 had to be replaced to correct some printing mistake. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Commission has no website of its own and thus the use of questions available on other sites/sources per se was not suggestive of the leakage thereof in advance or breach of the enjoinment of secrecy in a competitive examination. As on the basis of the cut-off marks for various categories of posts, candidates securing identical qualifying marks had to be declared successful, there has been no contravention of the prescribed zone of 1:5, he maintained. As on the basis of the cut-off marks for various categories of posts, candidates securing identical qualifying marks had to be declared successful, there has been no contravention of the prescribed zone of 1:5, he maintained. According to Mr. Singh, the Expert Committee constituted by the Commission had rightly re-determined the answers to the 4 questions referred to it and that on the basis thereof, the results of the petitioners have been re-assessed and declared on 25.01.2012. The learned Senior Counsel apprised this Court that though in terms thereof the appellant No. 4 had qualified to appear in the Main examination, he abstained from doing so. Mr. Singh however insisted that considering the reliefs prayed for the successful candidates in the Preliminary Examination are necessary parties and that the present challenge, in their absence is obviously void. Mr. Singh also laid the relevant records pertaining to the impugned examination for the perusal of this Court. 9. We have lent our anxious consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments on the aforenoted facets of the dissensus. Having regard to the spectrum of the issues seeking adjudication, we construe it to be expedient to deal at the threshold with the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties and other fringe aspects before delving into those bearing on the confidentiality and credibility of the examination process undertaken by the Commission. 10. Admittedly, none of the 750 candidates declared to be successful in the preliminary examination has been impleaded in the instant proceedings. It is obvious as well that invalidation of the preliminary examination as sought for would nullify their results and prejudice to them would ensue. Whereas it has been asserted on behalf of the Commission that this omission is fatal, the appellants/writ petitioners contend to the contrary pleading that the successful candidates are not necessary parties, the assailment being singularly against the decisions taken by it (Commission) qua the conduct of the selection process and the steps pursuant thereto. As the Commission in this premise has been impleaded in the proceedings and has contested the same on merits, this demur is inconsequential, they maintain. According to it, as the impeachment is of a participatory exercise undertaken by a constitutional entity like the Commission, the beneficiaries thereof, having regard to the nature of the assailment made and the defence adopted by it, would not be prejudiced by their non-impleadment. 11. According to it, as the impeachment is of a participatory exercise undertaken by a constitutional entity like the Commission, the beneficiaries thereof, having regard to the nature of the assailment made and the defence adopted by it, would not be prejudiced by their non-impleadment. 11. The grounds of denunciation of the preliminary examination enumerated hereinabove per se do not impute any overt act of the successful candidates to the alleged vitiating illegalities. Noticeably, no tangible semblance of any act of nepotism or favouritism of the Commission qua any of such candidates is discernible as well. Compromise with the confidentiality and secrecy of the process as is otherwise imperatively adherable in the conduct of a competitive examination of the kind involved is the principal assailment to discredit the same. This perception is founded mainly on the replacement of two pages in the Question Booklet by resorting to "cut and paste" operation and insistence on the signature of the candidates on the answer scripts. Additionally, casualness on the part of the question setter by integrating questions in bulk from a website/magazine in the question booklet as well as wrong key answers to seven questions have been projected to allege a perfunctory approach on the part of the Commission in evaluating the performance of the competing candidates. Breach of its norms by declaring candidates in excess of the prescribed zone of 1 : 5 to have passed the preliminary examination has been asseverated to proscribe the process. None of these grounds, to reiterate, is relatable to the successful candidates either individually or collectively though the impugnment if sustained, as a corollary, would act to their detriment in the ultimate. 12. The essentiality of impleadment of necessary parties in a judicial proceeding and the consequence of the omission to do so is no longer res integra. Ascertainment of the nature and necessity of their presence, however, in an adjudicative setting are of utmost import. The authorities cited at the Bar deserve dilation at this juncture. 13. In General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (supra), the appellant had issued a clarification that the seniority of grain shop staff would be fixed from the date of absorption of the respondents in the permanent department irrespective of their length of service in the grain shops. The authorities cited at the Bar deserve dilation at this juncture. 13. In General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (supra), the appellant had issued a clarification that the seniority of grain shop staff would be fixed from the date of absorption of the respondents in the permanent department irrespective of their length of service in the grain shops. However, the seniority of the other temporary staff initially appointed in the permanent department and others transferred to the grain shop would not suffer by their transfer to the grain shop. The jurisdictional High Court sustained the challenge of the respondents to the validity of decision on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Before the Apex Court the appellant inter alia contended that as the employees likely to be effected by the determination of the High Court had not been impleaded, it was fatal to the writ petition. Their Lordships held that the decision of the Railway Board impugned in the writ petition was in the nature of a policy decision and the writ proceeding was analogous to one in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of Government servants is assailed and that necessary parties thereto would be those against whom the relief is sought and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. Noticing that the relief had been claimed only against the Railways which had been impleaded through its representative and that no order fixing the seniority of the respondents vis-a-vis the individuals not impleaded had been challenged, the plea of non-joinder was negated. Their Lordships were of the view that in the contextual facts the persons not impleaded were at the most proper parties. 14. The Apex Court in A. Janardhana (supra) encountered a similar plea in the context of annulment of a panel for promotion of 102 officers on the ground that the same had been drawn up on the basis of a seniority list that stood quashed in a proceeding in which those who were placed above the appellant therein had not been impleaded. Their Lordships referring to the determination in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (supra) answered in the negative observing that the relief sought for was only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual and that no seniority had been claimed by one against the other. 15. In B. Prabhakar Rao (supra), the contextual facts disclosed successive variation in the age of superannuation of the employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the challenge to the consequential ordinance regulating the recruitment and conditions of service effected thereby. Responding to the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties in the negative, their Lordships ruled that the relief claimed was of a general nature and against the State and no particular relief was claimed against any individual. It was held that the failure to implead all affected parties was not a bar to the maintainability of the proceedings in the special circumstances of the case. 16. The same view in essence was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dilip Kr. Dutta (supra). Their Lordships enunciated that in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India necessary parties are those without whom no order can be effectively made. They are against whom relief is sought and that in whose absence no effective order can be rendered by a Court. While marking a distinction from necessary parties, their Lordships ruled that a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. 17. The aspect of natural justice vis-a-vis persons not impleaded, yet likely to be affected in the event of interference with a process in which they had advantageously participated was dwelt upon by the Apex Court in Biswaranjan Sahu & other vs. Sushanta Kr. Dinda & other (supra). It was observed by their Lordships that in a selection process marred by malpractices, issuance of notice to the selected persons would not be fruitful. 18. The plea of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence against the candidates to repulse the assailment of examination in which they had participated also did not meet the approval of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Shaktiraj (supra). Their Lordships ruled that if the entire process is obviously illegal, such an assertion has no application. 18. The plea of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence against the candidates to repulse the assailment of examination in which they had participated also did not meet the approval of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Shaktiraj (supra). Their Lordships ruled that if the entire process is obviously illegal, such an assertion has no application. 19. In the conspectus of the impugnments made in the proceedings in hand, having regard to the judicially evolved principles adumbrated hereinabove, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the successful candidates cannot be construed to be necessary parties so much so that in their absence no effective order can be passed qua the relief sought for. Neither the reliefs claimed are directed against any of these candidates, nor is their presence indispensable for a fair, complete and final adjudication of the issues involved. As the Commission as the author of the impugned process being impleaded has contested the proceedings, in our estimate, the successful candidates in the preliminary examination are not necessary parties. The plea against the maintainability of the proceedings for their non-impleadment, thus, does not commend to us for acceptance. 20. Vis-a-vis the reservation expressed on the declaration of the results of the candidates in excess of the prescribed ratio of 1:5, suffice it to mention that the original records pertaining to the process laid for the perusal of this Court disclose that the same is traceable to two factors, namely, (i) cut off marks determined for the various categories of candidates, and (ii) identical marks secured by more than one candidate. These contingencies were duly taken note of by the Commission which on 24.9.2011 approved that 725 candidates in all be declared to have passed the preliminary examination to be recommended for the main examination. This plea of the appellants, therefore, stand accordingly answered. No infirmity in the process, thus, can be deduced for declaring the results of 725 candidates. 21. Significantly, the Commission has not denied incorporation of questions in bulk lifted from the website http://cbseadda. blogspot.com/2011/05/cbse-science-quize.html as well as from the Magazine-- "News and Events (August, 2011 Issue)" in the Question Booklet meant for the preliminary examination. Its plea, however, that the above website does not belong to it has remained uncontroverted. 21. Significantly, the Commission has not denied incorporation of questions in bulk lifted from the website http://cbseadda. blogspot.com/2011/05/cbse-science-quize.html as well as from the Magazine-- "News and Events (August, 2011 Issue)" in the Question Booklet meant for the preliminary examination. Its plea, however, that the above website does not belong to it has remained uncontroverted. Though such a step portrays an injudicious, casual and slipshod approach of the question setter (s) reflecting on the quality of the process of evaluation of the performance of the candidates and lack of care and circumspection of the overseeing constitutional authority like the Commission, we are left unconvinced, in absence of any overwhelming testament to the contrary, that the same had assuredly resulted in the pilferage or leakage of questions prior to the date of the preliminary examination. Such an act, though indiscreet and avoidable in the interest of confidentiality and sanctity of a competitive examination, it ipso facto, in our view, may not be construed to be fatal to the process undertaken. It would be expedient for the Commission to learn from this experience and take appropriate precautionary steps in future to prevent recurrence of such an eventuality. 22. The Commission, as the pleadings would disclose, has admitted that three key answers out of those corresponding to the seven questions recited by the appellants/writ petitioners as provided in the booklet were wrong and that the aggregate marks of the candidates has been computed leaving out of consideration the same. Vis-a-vis the remaining four key answers re-determined by the expert committee constituted by the Commission pursuant to the operative directions contained in the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that it would be inexpedient on our part to venture into an academic exercise to determine the correctness or otherwise thereof. Though certain texts have been relied upon on behalf of the appellants to demonstrate that that the answers to question Nos. 265, 184 and 152 of Booklet-A proposed by the Commission and affirmed by the expert committee are wrong and that the one corresponding to question No. 189 of Booklet-A as furnished by the expert committee is partially correct, we construe it appropriate to abstain from delving into this area of the controversy. 265, 184 and 152 of Booklet-A proposed by the Commission and affirmed by the expert committee are wrong and that the one corresponding to question No. 189 of Booklet-A as furnished by the expert committee is partially correct, we construe it appropriate to abstain from delving into this area of the controversy. Understandably these questions had been framed by the question setter with reference to certain texts and/or acknowledged sources based on datas and informations, empirical and otherwise and, thus, any inquisitorial exploit actuated by the two competing versions is inadvisable. The challenge to the validity of the preliminary examination on this count is, therefore, also untenable. 23. Noticeably, on the completion of the exercise as directed vide the impugned judgment and order and following a re-determination of the key answers to the aforementioned four questions, the performance of the appellants had been appreciated afresh and by a notification the results have also been declared disclosing that only the appellant No. 4 had been determined to have qualified to take the main examination. On being queried by us, it is submitted at the Bar that none of the appellants has appeared in the main examination which has since been held and that the process is underway nearing completion. 24. The indictment of the preliminary examination on account of unwarranted and inexplicable replacement of page Nos. 25 and 26 of the question booklet next deserves scrutiny. As the pleadings would demonstrate, such a replacement is an admitted phenomenon, the Commission having sought to justify the said intervention contending that those were defective. 25. In course of the arguments, whereas on behalf of the appellants the original of the Question Booklet No. 13261 and the photocopy thereof was produced for the inspection of this Court, the sealed and unused Question Booklet No. 24109 was laid on behalf of the respondent Commission. On breaking the seal of the Question Booklet No. 24109 and on a comparison of the two booklets it is apparent that the existing page Nos. 25 and 26 had been replaced manually by pasting another on the left over margin of the original sheet. In Question Booklet No. 13261 the additional feature is that pages 23 and 24 are not available and instead pages 25 and 26 are in two sets. In other words, in Question Booklet No. 13261 page Nos. 25 and 26 had been replaced manually by pasting another on the left over margin of the original sheet. In Question Booklet No. 13261 the additional feature is that pages 23 and 24 are not available and instead pages 25 and 26 are in two sets. In other words, in Question Booklet No. 13261 page Nos. 23 and 24 as well have been replaced by page Nos. 25 and 26 obviously due to manual error. 26. Be that as it may, it has been sought to be assiduously highlighted on behalf of the appellants that it being apparent from the Question Booklet No. 13261 that the replaced original page Nos. 25 and 26 bear exactly the same questions without any semblance of variation therein, the Commission's plea of removal of defects therein is a myth. According to the appellants, it is, thus, apparent that deliberate interference with the question booklets had been made by or on behalf of the Commission without any conceivable and valid justification. 26. The File No.7/4/2010-MPSC(DR)/(C) as produced by the Commission for the perusal of this Court contains a note dated 8/9.9.2011 to the effect that the Secretary, MPSC had been entrusted by the Full Commission to take all necessary steps in connection with the examination. In course of printing of the Question Papers outside the State, the printer having sought for a confirmation as to whether the Question No. 179 i.e. "Who was elected Speaker of the 13th Kerala Assembly recently? needed replacement or not, it was decided on the advice of the question setter that the same be substituted by another question, namely, "Who is the Supreme Commander of Defence Forces of India?". The note reveals that though the printer was instructed to reprint the whole Question Set afresh, it for paucity of time expressed its inability to do so and, therefore, the relevant pages of the question booklet had to be replaced by new printed pages instead of reprinting the whole sets thereof (question booklets). That thereby the secrecy of the question papers had not been jeopardized was underlined. 28. The records, amongst others, contain the draft set of questions. Question No. 179 is reproduced herein-below:- 179. Who was elected speaker of the 13th Kerala Assembly in recently. (a) Veerappa Reddy (b) SN Iyenger (c) G Kathikeya (d) R Vijjayalaxmi. That thereby the secrecy of the question papers had not been jeopardized was underlined. 28. The records, amongst others, contain the draft set of questions. Question No. 179 is reproduced herein-below:- 179. Who was elected speaker of the 13th Kerala Assembly in recently. (a) Veerappa Reddy (b) SN Iyenger (c) G Kathikeya (d) R Vijjayalaxmi. The records also carry the question booklet of Series--A, B, C and D embodying changed Question No. 179 i.e. "Who is the Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces of India (a) The President (b) The Chief of the Army Staff (c) The Vice-President (d) The Defence Minister. 29. Significantly, Question No. 179 in the Question Booklet (Series-A) is at Page 25/ 26 and corresponds to Question No. 43, 90 and 146 in Series--B, C and D respectively. Noticeably, page Nos. 5 and 6, 11 and 12 as well as 19 and 20 in Series--B, C and D of the question booklet were similarly replaced by 'cut and paste' method. 30. Manifest it would, thus, be that Question No. 179 referred to in the records of the Commission was vis-a-vis the Question Booklet, Series-A and the replacement thereof as recommended by the question setter was effected, though at different places in all the Question Booklets of the different series and by the same method. Though the mode adopted for the replacement of the pages in the Question Booklets is, to say the least, unusual and unexpectedly outdated qua the Commission in the present day context when highly technical and sophisticated devices are available, the same per se on an overall scrutiny of the materials available does not impel this Court to decisively conclude that the exercise undertaken was wholly unwarranted and to secure any collateral or oblique purpose. The absence of page Nos. 23 and 24 in the Question Booklet No. 13261, Series-A and the replacement thereof by page Nos. 25 and 26 carrying the corrected Question No. 179, in our view, does not irrefutably testify that the questions contained in page Nos. 25 and 26 in the original Question Booklet and in the replaced page Nos. 25 and 26 were the same at all points of time and that the substitution was not called for to remove the defect as is disclosed by the records of the Commission. 25 and 26 in the original Question Booklet and in the replaced page Nos. 25 and 26 were the same at all points of time and that the substitution was not called for to remove the defect as is disclosed by the records of the Commission. The documents available in the original records of the Commission along with the note sheet dated 8/9.9.2011, in our estimate, belies the appellants' accusation as well as the apprehension of unwarranted interference with the Question Booklets, thus, undermining the indispensable essentiality of confidentiality in a competitive examination and the solemnity and the sanctity thereof. A constitutional institution like the Commission being in charge of the process, in absence of incontrovertible evidence of any consequential anomaly and incurable afflictions irreversibly defiling the exercise, judicial intervention to invalidate it on a preconceived supposition of such sacrilege would be wholly inferential and, thus, inexpedient. 31. The results of the preliminary examination though had been declared on 24.9.2011, the appellants, 11 in number, had approached this Court after two months of the declaration thereof. No convincing explanation for this delay as well is forthcoming. Admittedly, the Question Booklets had been allowed to be retained by the candidates after the examination. No allegation of malafide has been made either against the Secretary of the Commission or any other authority in-charge of the conduct of the process. No tangible material or proof of any act of favouritism or nepotism has been cited. As a matter of fact, the appellants have emphasized that their perceived interference with the Question Booklets in the manner suggested by them had exposed the process to unwarranted and undesirable hazards, thus, destroying the public confidence in it. In view of the determination on this issue as made hereinabove, we do not feel persuaded to lend our concurrence to this proposition. 32. In response to our query qua the candidate furnished with the Question Booklet No. 13261 sans page Nos. 23 and 24, it was submitted at the Bar that this anomaly having been pointed out to the concerned authorities in terms of the Instruction No. 3 thereof (Question Booklet), the same was suitably replaced. 33. With regard to the cavil on the insistence of the signature of the candidates on the answer sheet, Instruction No. 7 embodied in the Admit Card and Instruction Nos. 33. With regard to the cavil on the insistence of the signature of the candidates on the answer sheet, Instruction No. 7 embodied in the Admit Card and Instruction Nos. 1 and 6 in particular available overleaf thereof (answer sheet), being relevant, are extracted herein-below: INSTRUCTION NO.7 IN THE ADMIT CARD: 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) Exam. 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. (c) Do not writ 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. "INSTRUCTION NOS. 1 AND 6 IN THE ANSWER SHEET: 1. Answer Sheet will be processed by electronic means. Invalidation of Answer Scripts due to the incomplete/incorrect filling of the ROLL NO., BOOKLET SERIES, BOOKLET NO. and CENTRE CODE will be the sole responsibility of the candidates. 2..................................................... 3.................................................... 4.................................................... 5..................................................... 6. Please do not write or mark on this Answer Sheet outside the demarcated areas, it may invalidate your Answer Sheet. Please do not make any stray mark on the Answer Sheet. 34. These instructions meant for the candidates concerned logically demand a cumulative reading. Whereas Instruction No. 7(c) appearing on the Admit Card stipulated that the candidates should not write their names or anything other than the specified items of information asked for on the answer sheet, Instructions No. 6 thereof (answer sheet) restrained them from writing or marking outside the demarcated areas in it (answer sheet). The answer sheet in the format furnished, however, contained two blocks at the bottom stipulating the signatures of the candidates and the invigilator with date. Though Clause 7(c) of the Admit Card instructed the candidates against writing their names or 'anything other than the specified items of information asked for on the answer sheet', they were required to put their signature thereon (answer sheet). In our opinion, the restriction contained in Instruction No. 7(c) was, thus, subject to any stipulation contained in the answer sheet eliciting information from the candidates. 35. In our opinion, the restriction contained in Instruction No. 7(c) was, thus, subject to any stipulation contained in the answer sheet eliciting information from the candidates. 35. Noticeably, the answer sheet required the candidates to mark their signatures and not their names. On an over all consideration of the instructions vis-a-vis the candidates as set out in the Admit Card and the answer sheet, we are left unconvinced that the Commission's insistence for the signature of the candidates on the answer sheet was in violation of its norms to the contrary. 36. Though this mandate of signature of the candidates in absence whereof the answer sheet was liable to be invalidated was otherwise avoidable to obviate the possibility of their identification and allay the apprehension of undue favour to or prejudice against them in a given fact situation, in our opinion, such a prescription ipso facto does not irrefutably afflict the process with a vitiating illegality so as to annul the same on this ground alone. According to the Commission, this requirement was insisted upon to prevent the candidates from disowning their answer sheets at a later point of time while questioning their results. 37. On this facet of the debate as well no instance of manipulation of the results or any other undesirable interference therewith by or on behalf of the Commission or any other entity has been alleged. The imputation of lack of confidentiality and the apprehension of unfairness has, thus, been essentially putative and hypothetical. 38. Having regard to the fact that the competitive examination underway is being conducted by a body no less than a constitutional institution like the Commission, we, in absence of weighty, persuasive and convincing reasons, construe it inexpedient to draw any adverse inference against the same in the attendant facts and circumstances. That out of 1300 candidates who had participated in the preliminary examination, only 11 have approached this Court and 750 have been declared to be successful, is also an aspect which ought not to be lightly disregarded. 39. The decisions in Krishan Yadav & another vs. State of Haryana & other (supra) and in Pritpal Singh vs. State of Haryana & other (supra), as the contextual facts thereof would disclose, had been rendered on their singular facts and, that too, after the culmination of the selection processes involved. 39. The decisions in Krishan Yadav & another vs. State of Haryana & other (supra) and in Pritpal Singh vs. State of Haryana & other (supra), as the contextual facts thereof would disclose, had been rendered on their singular facts and, that too, after the culmination of the selection processes involved. Discreet fact finding enquiries therein revealed sordid instances of inconceivable vitiations rendering the exercises conducted to be fraudulent and deceitful. The destruction of the answer books and the records of the examination and the selection processes were adversely commented upon in the circumstances as obtained therein as the same were perceived to be a step to actualise the illegalities. With utmost respect, we are unable to draw an analogy therefrom to abort the on-going process herein. The facts, in our estimate, do not stand in comparison with each other. These authorities, therefore, are of no avail to the appellants. 40. We have perused the impugned judgment and order and find ourselves in general agreement with the approach adopted therein. For the conclusions recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that no interference therewith is called for. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.