JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioners as successful candidates in the written test for the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department conducted on 19.12.2012 and further to direct the respondents to conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the petitioners as done in the case of other similarly situated persons. 2. Brief facts are as follows: (i) The Government of Manipur issued notification dated 24.4.2010 for filling the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Male) comprising of 112 vacancies through direct recruitment. The method of selection specified for that of Physical Efficient Test (PET) carrying 20 marks; written test of 60 marks and viva-voce of 20 marks and also that a candidate who passed PET will be eligible for written test and if written test is passed, then will be eligible for viva-voce. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and the chest numbers of the petitioners are 433/1E and 1579/1E respectively. After being qualified for the PET, the petitioners had appeared for the written test. But to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, when the result of the written test was notified on 25.2.2013, the petitioners could not find their names in the list of candidates who have been qualified in the written test. (ii) Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed application under RTI Act seeking information as to their marks in the written exam. The Special DGP vide letter dated 9.4.2013 informed the Special Secretary (Home) that the Police Department is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Since the said RTI information was not furnished to the petitioners, they have filed W.P.(C) No.685 of 2013 praying for quashing the letter dated 9.4.2013 and to direct the respondents to produce the answer script of the petitioners. By the order dated 4.10.2013, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to give the required information sought by the petitioners. (iii) Thereafter, the State Government preferred Review Petition No.30 of 2013 for reviewing the said order dated 4.10.2013 and by the order dated 13.11.2013, the review petition was allowed with a direction to furnish the marks secured by the petitioners in the written exam within one month. (iii) Thereafter, the State Government preferred Review Petition No.30 of 2013 for reviewing the said order dated 4.10.2013 and by the order dated 13.11.2013, the review petition was allowed with a direction to furnish the marks secured by the petitioners in the written exam within one month. The selection process was over by declaration of the result on 3.4.2014. (iv) On 29.3.2014, the Special DGP furnished the petitioners their written exam marks and from the said information, the first petitioner got 26 1/2 marks and the second petitioner got 27 marks. Being unsatisfied, the petitioners have preferred another RTI application on 25.4.2014 praying for inspection of the answer script of the written test. Since information was not furnished to them, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.47 of 2015 and the same was withdrawn on 20.5.2015 as the Chief Information Commissioner was appointed and appropriate form was available. (v) Thereafter, the petitioners preferred their complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act to the Chief Information Commissioner on 2.7.2015. On 31.8.2015, the Special DGP informed the petitioners that the Manipur Police Department exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. (vi) In August 2016, the petitioners came to know that in one RTI reply addressed to R.K.Prabir Singh, the Special Secretary (Home) furnished the information with regard to marks tabulation of the selected candidates. On perusal of the said marks scored by the selected candidates, the petitioners came to know that even a candidate who scored just 20 marks in the written exam were called for viva-voce and the petitioners who secured 26 1/2 and 27 marks respectively in the written exam were not called for viva-voce. (vii) In one of the similar case i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014 and 376 of 214, the petitioners therein scored higher marks than others who were called for interview. But they were not called for viva-voce and by the order dated 24.7.2015, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conduct a special viva-voce test for the two petitioners within a period of one month. The order of this Court has been complied with and the respondents appointed the petitioners therein on 11.5.2016 and 30.8.2016 respectively to the post of Sub-Inspector. (viii) In the same situation, one Purnachand Singh filed W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016, wherein also a direction was given for conducting special viva-voce. Thereafter, Purnachand Singh got appointment. The order of this Court has been complied with and the respondents appointed the petitioners therein on 11.5.2016 and 30.8.2016 respectively to the post of Sub-Inspector. (viii) In the same situation, one Purnachand Singh filed W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016, wherein also a direction was given for conducting special viva-voce. Thereafter, Purnachand Singh got appointment. On 2.4.2019, the petitioners have preferred application to the DGP, Manipur for conducting a special viva-voce test as they scored higher marks in the written exam than the other candidates called for interview. (ix) The concerned authority had not included the names of the petitioners in the list of successful candidates despite the fact that the petitioners had scored 26 1/2 and 27 marks respectively in the written exam. Upon such irregularities of the authorities, the petitioners were not called for viva-voce. (x) Similarly situated persons filed W.P.(C) No.376 and 760 of 2014 praying inter alia for directing the authority to declare the petitioners in the said writ petitioner as successful candidates in the written test and to conduct the viva-voce. This Court granted the relief sought for in the said writ petitioner and the petitioners therein have also joined the service in the Manipur police Department. (xi) On 2.4.2019 the petitioners have submitted a representation to consider them in the light of the orders passed in the writ petitions (supra). Since the representation of the petitioners has not been considered, the petitioners have filed the writ petition. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the selection process was over by declaration of the result on 3.4.2014. The petitioners' marks in the written exam are higher than 109 selected candidates, who were called for viva-voce. The 109 candidates belong to reserved category of SC/ST and the petitioners belong to OBC/Unreserved candidates whose pass marks for written test of ASI is - 28 marks for Unreserved and OBC and 20 marks for SC/ST. The petitioners failed to secure qualifying marks for ASI written exam. 4. It is stated that the petitioners were ASI candidates, whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 are Sub-Inspector candidates and the written exam was different. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016 is also SI candidate. They are on a different footings and the pattern of written exam is also different. 4. It is stated that the petitioners were ASI candidates, whereas the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 are Sub-Inspector candidates and the written exam was different. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016 is also SI candidate. They are on a different footings and the pattern of written exam is also different. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014, the State Government decided to conduct special viva-voce test. However, in the instant case no such decision has been taken to conduct special viva-voce test as the petitioners have failed to score the required marks. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The petitioners filed a rejoinder stating that in order to know the correct and true picture of their marks, they have filed RTI application and since the information sought by the petitioners was not furnished, they have preferred appeal under Section 9(1) of the RTI Act to the Chief Secretary (Home). However, the first appellate authority informed the petitioners that the Manipur Police Department is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred second appeals before the State Information Commission being Appeal Case Nos.113 and 114 of 2019 and the said appeals were disposed of on 9.7.2020 after the Manipur Police Department gave a copy of the answer scripts of the petitioners, including the page of answers to question Nos.7 and 8 of the first petitioner. After the petitioners examined their answer script, it was found that they were not given marks for correct answers and where half should have been given by the examiner, no marks were allotted to them. The marks which the first petitioner should get is 26 marks plus 2 1/4 marks and that will be 28 1/4 marks that is above the cut off for passing the written exam. Likewise, the marks which the second petitioner should get is 27 marks plus 2 1/2 marks and that will be 29 1/2 marks that is above the cut off for passing the written exam. In view of the above, the petitioners ought to have been called for special viva-voce as has been done in the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014 and 376 of 2014 by applying the same ratio decidendi in the present case. 6. In view of the above, the petitioners ought to have been called for special viva-voce as has been done in the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014 and 376 of 2014 by applying the same ratio decidendi in the present case. 6. Respondents 2 and 3 filed reply to the rejoinder stating that no roving enquiry can be done for re-assessment of the answer script of the petitioners. The answer script of the second petitioner has been in the custody of the RTI authority, as such, the respondents 2 and 3 may be permitted to file a separate reply in respect of the second petitioner. 7. Heard Mr.Th.Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondents State. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the notification dated 24.4.2010, the petitioners applied for the recruitment of ASI and after being qualified for the PET, they had appeared for the written test. But when the result of the said written test was notified on 25.2.2013, the petitioners could not find their names in the list of candidates who have been qualified in the written test. He would submit that in order to know the marks in the written test, the petitioners field applications on 6.3.2013 and 7.3.2013 respectively under the RTI Act. Since no information was furnished, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.685 of 2013 and this Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents to furnish the marks secured by them. As per the information, the first petitioner secured 26 1/2 marks and the second petitioner secured 27 marks. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the month of August, 2016 the petitioners came across one RTI reply dated 25.7.2015, wherein the mark tabulation secured by selected candidates in PET, written test and viva-voce was provided. On a perusal of the said RTI reply, it was seen that a number of candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioners were called for viva-voce. On a perusal of the said RTI reply, it was seen that a number of candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioners were called for viva-voce. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the writ petition for direction to the respondents to declare the petitioners as successful candidates in the written test for the post of ASI in the Manipur Police Department conducted on 19.12.2012 and further direct the respondents to conduct special viva-voce test for the petitioners in the light of the orders passed in W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014, 376 of 2014 and 818 of 2016 respectively. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavit stating that the cut off marks for the general candidates is 28 marks and as such, the petitioners were not called for viva-voce. When the petitioners preferred an RTI application on 20.9.2019, thereby asking the authorities to furnish their answer script of the written test, the answer scripts were provided to them after the State Information Commission directed the Manipur Police Department to furnish the same. On a perusal of the answer scripts, the petitioners saw that a number of answers were not allotted marks properly and even correct answers were cross marked. Arguing so and highlighting the question and the answer script of certain questions for which no mark was allotted and even the correct answers were cross marked, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondents to re-evaluate the answers of the petitioners in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009 and further direct the respondents that if such reevaluation the petitioners found to have scored the cut off marks, then a special viva-voce test be conducted for the petitioners for the post of ASI by applying the ratio of W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016 within a time frame. 11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State contended that the selection process for the post of ASI was completed by declaration of results on 3.4.2014 itself and that the petitioners belong to OBC/Unreserved candidates whose pass mark for written test is 28 marks. However, the petitioners secured qualifying marks for ASI in the written test 26 1/2 (first petitioner) and 27 (second petitioner) respectively. 12. However, the petitioners secured qualifying marks for ASI in the written test 26 1/2 (first petitioner) and 27 (second petitioner) respectively. 12. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the orders in the cases of W.P.(C) Nos.760 of 2014 and 376 of 2014 referred by the petitioners were relate to the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector and the written test for the said post is different. As such equality cannot be claimed against unequals. Similarly, the order in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016 referred by the petitioners relates to Sub-Inspector candidates and the same is on different footing and the written test patterns are also different. 13. As far as the marks not allotted and cross marked for certain questions canvassed by the petitioners, learned Government Advocate submitted that the evaluating authority has rightly evaluated the marks and there is no flaw in it. 14. Learned Government Advocate lastly submitted that no roving enquiry can be done for re-assessment of answer script of the petitioners and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 16. The grievance of the petitioners is that after filing the writ petition, they have been provided with copy of the answer scripts pursuant to the direction dated 9.7.2020 given by the State Information Commission in the second appeals being Appeal Case Nos.113 and 114 of 2019 preferred by the petitioners. As per the earlier RTI information furnished to the petitioners, the first petitioner secured 26 marks and the second petitioner secured 27 marks in the written test. After obtaining the answer scripts and upon perusal thereof, the petitioners find that the first petitioner will get 2 1/4 marks in addition to 26 marks which he has already secured. Similarly, the second petitioner will get 2 1/2 marks in addition to 27 marks which he has already secured. Thus, adding the aforesaid additional marks, the first petitioner would secure 28 1/4 marks and the second petitioner would secure 29 1/2 marks, which are higher than the cut off marks fixed for Unreserved and OBC candidates i.e. 28 marks. 17. Similarly, the second petitioner will get 2 1/2 marks in addition to 27 marks which he has already secured. Thus, adding the aforesaid additional marks, the first petitioner would secure 28 1/4 marks and the second petitioner would secure 29 1/2 marks, which are higher than the cut off marks fixed for Unreserved and OBC candidates i.e. 28 marks. 17. In support of the claim made by the petitioners in the writ petition qua non-awarding of marks to certain questions and cross mark put to certain questions, the petitioners highlighted the following questions: 'For Petitioner No.1: In respect of Question No.2(ii) Name the founders of the following religions:- (a) Jainism and (b) Judaism (One mark) The first petitioner wrote (a) Mahavira and (b) Profet Moses and it was marked correct by the examiner, but gave only 3/4 marks instead of one mark. So 1/4 markshould be added to make it one full mark. In respect of Question No.4(i) Where was the last Asian Games held? What was India's position in the medal tally table? The first petitioner wrote 'the last Asian Games was held in Chine and the position of India in the medal tally table is in 6 position'. The said answer was marked correct, but instead of one full mark, he was given only 1/2 mark. So 1/2 mark should be added to make it one full mark. In respect of question No.4(ii) To whom are the following awards given:- (a) Golden Boot (b) Golden Ball, Name the last recipients of these and to which country do they belong to? The first petitioner wrote (a) Thomas Muller of Germany (b) Deigo Forlan of Uruguay, the answer (a) and (b) is a correct answer, but only 1/4 mark is given to the first petitioner instead of full one mark. So 1/4 mark should be added to make it 1/2 mark. In respect of question No.5(iii) Name two malnutrition diseases for the children. The first petitioner wrote the two malnutrition diseases of Children are (a) kwashiorkor (b) Marasumuss and the first petitioner was only given 1/2 mark and he should have been given 1/4 mark altogether for spelling of Marasumuss as have been given for answer to question No.5(iv) and 6(i). In respect of question No.7(ii) i.e. given the verb of Memory The first petitioner wrote Memorise which is a correct answer but it was marked as wrong answer. In respect of question No.7(ii) i.e. given the verb of Memory The first petitioner wrote Memorise which is a correct answer but it was marked as wrong answer. He should have been given 1/2 mark for that answer. Memorise is British English which is the correct answer. As such the marks which the first petitioner should get is 26 marks + 2 1/4 marks (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/2 = 2 1/4 ) and that will be 28 1/4 marks that is above the cut off/qualifying mark for passing the written exam. For Petitioner No.2: In respect of Question No.1(i) Name any two major winds of the Earth. The second petitioner wrote Trades Wind and Westerlies Wind which is a correct answer, but he was given only 3/4 mark for just adding 's' in the trade wind. In respect of Question No.1(ii) Name the largest States of India area wise and population wise. The second petitioner wrote State wise Rajasthan, Population wise Uttar Pradesh. Both the answers are correct answers, but he was given only 1/2 mark and Rajasthan was marked wrong. The second petitioner should have been given full one mark by adding another 1/2 mark. In respect of Question No.2(ii) Name the founders of the following religions (a) Jainism and (b) Judaism The second petitioner wrote Jainism - Jain Mahavira, Judaism - Moses Both the answers were ticked as correct answers, but he was given only 1/2 mark instead of full one mark. He should get another 1/2 mark to make it as one full mark. In respect of Question No.3 (iii) Name the two International Airports of Eastern India. The second petitioner wrote Kolkata and Mumbai Kolkata was marked as correct answer, but he was given only 1/4 mark instead of 1/2 mark. In respect of Question No.4(ii) To whom are the following awards given: (a) Golden Boot (b) Golden Ball Name the last recipients of these and to which countries do they belong to? The second petitioner wrote Thomas Muller (Uruguay) and Diego Forland (Uruguay). Thomas Muller is a correct answer, but no marks was given to the petitioner. He should atleast be given 1/2 mark for the said answer. In respect of Question No.6(iv) Name the languages spoken in the following States:- (a) Kerala (b) Andhra Pradesh The second petitioner wrote (a) Malayalam (b) Telugu. Thomas Muller is a correct answer, but no marks was given to the petitioner. He should atleast be given 1/2 mark for the said answer. In respect of Question No.6(iv) Name the languages spoken in the following States:- (a) Kerala (b) Andhra Pradesh The second petitioner wrote (a) Malayalam (b) Telugu. Both the answers are correct answers, but the Telugu was marked as wrong answer and he was given only 1/2 instead of full one mark by adding another 1/2 mark. As such the marks which the second petitioner should get is 27 mark + 21/2 marks (1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 2 1/2) and that will be 29 1/2 marks that is above the cut off/qualifying marks for passing the written exam.' Thus, in view of the above i.e. the first petitioner should get 28 1/2 marks and the second petitioner should get 29 1/2 marks, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for direction on the respondents to call for special viva-voce as has been done in similar matters. On the other hand, the respondents denied the awarding of marks as claimed by the petitioners and stated as under: 'The first petitioner wrote his answer in Question No.2(ii)(a) 'The founder of Jainism is Mahavira'. However, the correct answer is to be 'The founder of Jainism is Mahavira' i.e. the spelling of Jainism was wrong written by the petitioner resulting 1/4 marks was deducted for spelling mistake. The first petitioner wrote his answer in Question No.4(i) 'The last Asian Games was held in China and the position of India in the medal tally table is in 6 position'. The correct answer is 'The last Asian Games was held in China and the position of India in the medal tally table was in 6th position'. The first petitioner did not write Question No.4(ii) in his answer. However, the examiner gave 1/4 mark. Hence, this 1/4 mark is supposed to be deducted. The first petitioner wrote his answer in Question No.5(iii) 'The two malnutrition diseases of children are 'Kwashiorkor (b) Marasumuss'. The correct answer are Kwashiorkor and Marasmus i.e. spelling of Marasmus was written wrongly and 1/2 mark was deducted.' 18. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is the say of the respondent State that the answer script has been in custody of RTI authority. 19. The correct answer are Kwashiorkor and Marasmus i.e. spelling of Marasmus was written wrongly and 1/2 mark was deducted.' 18. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is the say of the respondent State that the answer script has been in custody of RTI authority. 19. As stated supra, the aforesaid information came to the knowledge of the petitioners only after the filing of the writ petition when the Manipur Police Department gave copy of the answer scripts pursuant to the direction of the State Information Commission passed in Appeal Case Nos.113 and 114 of 2019 dated 09.7.2020. In fact, in the year 2013 itself, the petitioners have asked for answer scripts. However, for one reason or the other, the answer scripts have not been furnished to the petitioners by the authorities concerned and finally, the same was provided to the petitioners in the year 2020. 20. While filing affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, the respondents 2 and 3 stated that petitioners failed to secure qualifying marks for ASI written test i.e. 26 1/2 marks was secured by the first petitioner and 27 marks by the second petitioner. The cut off for Unreserved and OBCs, in which category the petitioners applied, is 28 marks. Now the petitioners claim that the first petitioner should be given 28 1/4 marks and the second petitioner should be given 29 1/2 marks. Though the respondent State contended that the claim now made by the petitioners is not supported by any material, equally, the respondent State has also failed to substantiate their case by producing documentary proof. Along with the rejoinder to the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioners have produced the question and answer which they have obtained under RTI Act. On a perusal of the same, prima facie, this Court is of the view that there is substance in the claim now made by the petitioners. 21. At this stage, learned Government Advocate contended that the selection process was over and the result was announced on 03.4.2014 itself and no roving enquiry can be ordered for re-assessment of the answer script of the petitioners. The aforesaid argument of learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced. 22. 21. At this stage, learned Government Advocate contended that the selection process was over and the result was announced on 03.4.2014 itself and no roving enquiry can be ordered for re-assessment of the answer script of the petitioners. The aforesaid argument of learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced. 22. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that if subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, certain developments take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be disregarded. 23. In Seshambal (dead) through LRs v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and others, (2010) 3 SCC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '17. While it is true that the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date suit or the legal proceedings were instituted, it is equally true that if subsequent to the filing of the suit, certain developments take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration. What the court in such a situation is expected to do is to examine the impact of the said subsequent development on the right to relief claimed by a party and, if necessary, mould the relief suitably so that the same is tailored to the situation that obtains on the date of relief is actually granted.' 24. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B.Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 , where it has been held that although the ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of the institution of the suit, yet the Court has power to mould the relief in case the following three conditions are satisfied: '11. ... (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent even tor changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise.' 25. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the subsequent development is that the petitioners 1 and 2 will be getting 28 1/4 marks and 29 1/2 marks respectively, for which, it would be appropriate to direct re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners in accordance with law. 26. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Ningthoujam Devdas Singh v. The State of Manipur and others, (W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009, decided on 17.12.2013) held as under: 'Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the authorities would be required to re-evaluate the answers given by the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and if it is found that the petitioner has secured more marks than any of the successful candidates who have been appointed, the petitioner would also be entitled to be included in the Select List for the purpose of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.' 27. In view of the above, this court is of the firm opinion that by re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent State and, on the other hand, if re-evaluation is done and if the petitioners obtain more marks, it would be very much helpful to them to get selected for the post in question. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when similar cases were filed before this Court, being W.P.(C) Nos.376 and 760 of 2014, praying inter alia for directing the respondent authorities therein to declare the petitioners therein as successful candidates in the written test and to conduct viva-voce test, this Court was pleased to grant similar reliefs as sought for in the instant writ petition. 29. Countering the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners here were ASI candidates and the candidates involved in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 were SI candidates and also the written tests were different. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim equality. The argument of learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced for the reason that the principle for selection is same, whether it is for ASI or SI. 30. By the order dated 24.7.2015, the Hon'ble First Bench, in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 held as under: 'Heard Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned Sr. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim equality. The argument of learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced for the reason that the principle for selection is same, whether it is for ASI or SI. 30. By the order dated 24.7.2015, the Hon'ble First Bench, in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014 held as under: 'Heard Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 and Mr.M.Hemchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.376 of 2014 as well as Mr.Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Advocate Genera, Manipur appearing for the State respondents. The prayer in both the writ petitioners is for quashing the entire selection solely on the ground that even though both the petitioners in both the writ petitions have secured more marks than others, who were called for interview, they were never called for interview. The learned Advocate General, on verification of records, submits that the allegations made by the petitioners in their respective writ petitions were not called for interview and now the State Government has decided to conduct 'special viva-voce test' for both the petitioners in two writ petitions. In view of the above, nothing remains to be decided in these two writ petitions. We, therefore, dispose of these two writ petitions directing the State respondents to conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the two petitioners in both the writ petitions within a period of two-months from to-day. W.P.(C) No.376 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 stand disposed of.' 31. It is also pertinent to point out that in W.P.No.818 of 2016, decided on 15.05.2017 (Chongtham Purnachand Singh v. State of Manipur and others), this Court, by following the orders passed in W.P.(C) Nos.376 and 760 of 2014, held as under: 'Heard Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Addl. GA for the State respondents. Mr.Mohendro, learned counsel submits that at the time of declaring the result, the petitioner was not aware of the marks secured by him. In the meantime, the Division Bench of this Court did dispose of 2 (two) writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No.760 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.376 of 20114 on 24.07.2015 wherein this Court recorded the submissions of the learned Advocate General to the effect that the State Government had decided to hold 'special Viva Voce test' for both the petitioners in these two writ petitions. After this order dated 24.07.2015 having been passed by this Court, the petitioners applied for information under the RTI and in response thereto, the authorities furnished information which are annexed at Page/41 in the present writ petition and indicates that the petitioner secured 26 3/4 /60. Accordingly, on 24.04.2016 when the matter was came up for consideration, Mr.A.Mohendro, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.7.2015 to which Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Addl. GA prayed for two (two) weeks' time for seeking instruction from the Administrative Department. Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Addl GA submits that he has not yet received the instruction. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall examine whether the petitioner has really secured 26 3/4 out of 60 marks and whether the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and if found correct, the State Government shall conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the petitioner. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 (four) weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.' 32. In the instant case also, the petitioners applied for information under RTI and in response thereto, the authorities furnished information which were produced before this Court by the petitioners to show that the first petitioner secured 28 1/4 marks in the written exam. Similarly, the second petitioner secured 29 1/2 marks in the written exam. In such circumstances, as stated supra, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent State, if the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to examine whether the petitioners have really secured 28 1/4 and 29 1/2 marks respectively in the written exam conducted for ASI and whether the petitioners' case is covered by the decision of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and if found correct, the respondent State shall conduct 'special viva-voce test' for the petitioners. That apart, the aforesaid direction would also meet the ends of justice. 33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that on 2.4.2019, the petitioners have submitted a representation to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the orders of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and 15.05.2017 respectively. Admittedly, the respondent State has not considered the said representation of the petitioner till date. 33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that on 2.4.2019, the petitioners have submitted a representation to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the orders of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and 15.05.2017 respectively. Admittedly, the respondent State has not considered the said representation of the petitioner till date. If an aggrieved person submits a representation to the authorities, it is the bounden duty of the authorities to consider the representation and communicate a decision to him. However, in the case on hand, as stated supra, the respondent State failed to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 2.4.2019 till date. Since the respondent State failed to consider their representation, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is also to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 2.4.2019 in the light of the decisions of this Court dated 24.07.2015 and 15.05.2017 respectively. Therefore, as stated supra, if the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent State, no harm or loss would cause to them. 34. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondents are directed to re-evaluate the answers of the petitioners in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.163 of 2009, decided on 17.12.2013. (ii) If upon such re-evaluation, the petitioners are found to have scored the cut off marks, then a 'special viva-voce test' be conducted or called for the petitioners for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police by applying the ratio in W.P.(C) Nos.760 and 376 of 2014, decided on 24.07.2015 and in W.P.(C) No.818 of 2016, decided on 15.05.2017. (iii) The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) No costs. 35. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.