JUDGMENT 1. W.P.(C) No.373 of 2019 has been filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the entire recruitment process conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission in pursuance to the advertisement No.1 of 2019, dated 8.1.2019 as the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to hold a fresh recruitment for the posts mentioned in the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 after amending the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 by fully complying with the directive of this Court order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.803 and 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017. 2. W.P.(C) No.375 of 2019 has been filed to quash the impugned advertisement No.1 of 2019, dated 8.1.2019 issued in pursuance to the Press Note dated 5.1.2019 read with Press Note dated 28.2.2019 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission. 3. W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 has been filed to quash the impugned advertisement No.1 of 2019 dated 8.1.2019 issued by the Secretary, MPSC for filling up of 72 posts of MCS, MPS, MFS, SDC and MSS without laying down the Rules and Regulations for evaluation, tabulation and conduct of the examination. 4. Heard Mr.Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.373 of 2019; Mr.Irom Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.375 of 2019; Mrs.G.Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 and Mr.M.Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State as well as the Manipur Public Service Commission. 5. Since challenge to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 made in these writ petitions is one and the same, all three writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 6. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) N.373 of 2019 is that they have applied for Manipur Public Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016 for which an examination was conducted. On 28.2.2017, this Court, in a common order in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017 directed the Manipur Public Service Commission [MPSC] to amend the MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 before holding of the present examination by mentioning and highlighting the irregularities committed by the MPSC in conducting the Manipur Public Service Combined Competitive Examination, 2016. However, the MPSC without properly amending the said Rules, 2011, have issued the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 for recruitment of various posts of Civil Service under the Government of Manipur in complete violation of the order of this Court. 7. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No375 of 2019 is that he had applied for the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2019 and the authority has issued e-admit card to him pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019. According to the petitioner, the impugned advertisement has been issued in violation of the directions issued in the common order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2017 and 60 of 2017. 8. Similarly, the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 is that they are the candidates, who had appeared in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 and are the candidates applied in the Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination, 2019. According to the petitioners, by the common order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016, this Court directed the respondents, especially MPSC to lay down proper rules, norms and regulations as in the absence of which it was difficult on the part of this Court to come to a conclusion that Rules have been violated. The second petitioner Y.Surjit Singh approached the SPIO, MPSC for furnishing information as to how the Examination 2019 is going to be conducted by the MPSC and for that he had received reply to the effect that the MPSC is going to repeat the same pattern of examination except certain amendment which are not going to cure the defects already suffered by the candidates who had participated in the 2016 examination. According to the petitioners, the MPSC (Procedure and Business Conduct) Rules, 2011 has been duly amended from time to time after the issuance of the impugned advertisement, which itself is not acceptable and as such the examination to be conducted by the MPSC suffers from similar drawbacks and irregularities. According to the petitioners, the MPSC has failed to formulate proper evaluation rules, tabulation and the conduct of business rules of the examination 2019. 9. According to the petitioners, the MPSC has failed to formulate proper evaluation rules, tabulation and the conduct of business rules of the examination 2019. 9. The respondent MPSC filed affidavit-in-opposition in W.P.(C) No.373 of 2019 stating that they took serious note of the directions made in the order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017 and had taken efforts to comply with the said order. Accordingly, certain amendments were made in three stages so far, namely, the provisions at Rules, 21, 26-A(2), 26-A(5), 26-A(8), 26-A(14) and 26-B(xii) of the MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 comprising all the aspects as per the direction of this Court. As far as the codification is concerned, the same will be done under the strict supervision of the Secretary with CCTV coverage and also the MPSC framed rules/guidelines in compliance of the order dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016. 10. It is stated that in the organisational set up of MPSC, there is no sanctioned post of Controller of Examinations and the role and function of the Controller of Examinations has been discharging by the Secretary, MPSC for administrative convenience. In the earlier MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2003, it was also mentioned that the Secretary and Head of Department shall also discharge the function of the Controller of Examinations and the practice has been followed as convention. It is also stated that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 28.2.2017, the MPSC has amended the MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 from time to time as well as initiated steps/process for appointment of Controller of Examinations on deputation basis. There is no cause of action further for the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright. 11. The respondent State filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that at present a large number of vacancies has arisen for the posts to be filled up by conducting MCSCCE, 2019 through MPSC. The MCSCCE, 2016 conducted by publishing the advertisement on 29.12.2015 has already been quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2019 and the present position is that the said issue of MCSCC Examination, 2016 is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The MCSCCE, 2016 conducted by publishing the advertisement on 29.12.2015 has already been quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2019 and the present position is that the said issue of MCSCC Examination, 2016 is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, no MCSCC Examination has been held while MCSCC Exam (Preliminary) 2019 has been stayed by this Court and the same is pending for more than 3 years. It is stated that thousands of aspirants vying for selection pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019. As it has been apparent after passing of the interim order dated 10.5.2019, vide a Government Order dated 29.8.2019 the Controller of Examinations has been appointed and therefore it would be in advancement of the cause of justice to permit the State Government to take necessary steps for conduct of the MCSCC Examination, 2019 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 12. Assailing the impugned advertisement, Mr.Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.373 of 2019, submitted that the petitioners have applied for MCSCC (Preliminary) Examination, 2019 soon after the issuance of the impugned advertisement for recruitment of 15 posts of MCS Grade-II, 15 posts of MPS Grade-II, 15 posts of MFS Grade-III, 15 posts of SDC and 10 posts of MSS and that the petitioners have received an information regarding the rules which is to be followed by the MPSC while holding the MCSCCE, 2019. He would submit that after seeing the information obtained by Yumlembam Surjit Singh under RTI Act, 2005, it has been found that the MPSC has not done necessary amendments in the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 [for short, 'the Rules of 2011'] despite direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016 dated 28.2.2017. 13. Drawing attention of the Court to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016, the learned counsel submitted that in the said case, this Court held that the Controller of Examinations is responsible for the codification and that the functions of the Controller of Examinations was discharged by the Secretary as there was no Controller of Examinations. In the said case, it was also observed by this Court that since codification is highly sensitive and confidential and also rules are silent, proper guidelines needs to be laid down. In the said case, it was also observed by this Court that since codification is highly sensitive and confidential and also rules are silent, proper guidelines needs to be laid down. It was further held that it is desirable that proper guidelines are laid down as regards the number of persons to be involved in the codification and de-codification etc. as the maintenance of confidentiality will be higher and this is an issue which need to be worked out by the MPSC with the aid of experts and take suitable corrective steps. 14. Highlighting the observations made in paragraph 57 of the order dated 28.2.2017 that the evaluation and tabulation of answer books proceeds as the case may be, shall be done as per procedures laid down by the Commission, the learned counsel submitted that nothing has been brought on record as to the procedure laid down by the Commission for undertaking evaluation and tabulation. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the findings in the said case that the MPSC must lay down the procedures in writing in advance and ought not to be left to the absolute discretion of any individual functionary as it seems to have been done in the case which has caused so much uncertainty and suspicion in the minds of the candidates which were all avoidable. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that despite clear findings of this Court dated 28.2.2017 in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016, the MPSC has proceeded to conduct the preliminary examination, 2019 without making proper amendments in the Rules of 2011 and that the petitioners are now aggrieved by the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 as the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. While seeking to set aside the impugned advertisement, the learned counsel prayed for direction on the respondents to hold a fresh recruitment for the posts mentioned in the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 after amending the Rules of 2011 by fully complying with the directions issued by this Court dated 28.2.2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017. 16. Similarly, Mr.Irom Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.375 of 2019 submitted that since the rule in connection with the codification of answer sheet, evaluation and tabulation, role and duties of the Controller of Examinations, manner in conducting the examination etc. 16. Similarly, Mr.Irom Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.375 of 2019 submitted that since the rule in connection with the codification of answer sheet, evaluation and tabulation, role and duties of the Controller of Examinations, manner in conducting the examination etc. are not framed by the respondents, the examination of the 2016 was quashed in the earlier round of litigation. He would submit that certain irregularities were detected by the Committee constituting a retired District and Sessions Judge and retired IAS officer, who were appointed by this Court. 17. The learned counsel further submitted that without an iota of doubt it can be safely concluded that the irregularities occurred in the examination of 2016 was due to non-framing of rules in that regard. As such, those irregularities could be avoided in the future examination conducted by the MPSC, if the rules of the said examinations are properly framed. He would submit that in furtherance to the direction of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016, the MPSC has amended a portion of the rules and the said rules are not a rule that can be enforced for the simple reason that such rules are not been notified by the authorities. Therefore, as per the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India rules ought to be passed before legislation. In the instant case, it has not been done so and the same has not been published also. Thus, there are no rules applicable for conducting the MCSCCCE, 2019. As such, the faith of the candidates appearing in the examination 2019 will end up as that of the 2016 examination. 18. Mrs.Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.378 of 2019 submitted that in fact the petitioners were parties to the earlier writ petitions challenging the conduct of MCSCCE, 2016 and as per the order dated 28.2.2017, the petitioners and other candidates had applied for furnishing copies of answer scripts under the RTI Act, 2005. On receipt of the copies of the evaluated answer scripts, many unsuccessful candidates came to know that there were too many irregularities in the evaluation of the answer scripts and as such writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.606 and 725 of 2017 were filed. On receipt of the copies of the evaluated answer scripts, many unsuccessful candidates came to know that there were too many irregularities in the evaluation of the answer scripts and as such writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.606 and 725 of 2017 were filed. She would submit that in the earlier writ petitions, this Court directed to formulate appropriate rules and guidelines, evaluation rules, appointment of a Controller of Examinations. 19. Referring the Rules of 2011, the learned counsel argued that there is no mention about any particular rules for evaluating the general studies paper which is common for all and that the general studies paper involves a lot of subjects which includes Maths, Geography, History, Polity, Science and Technology, Indian Economy, Art and Culture and Current Affairs, which is not possible for a particular examiner to evaluate answers of the questions related with these different subjects. According to learned counsel, scaling has not been adopted as per Rule 26A(vi) which is absurd and not tenable in the eye of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. 20. She further submitted that Rule 26-A(v) provides for handing over of 80 answer booklets on a day to an Examiner. This issue was one of the crux in the 2016 examination as it was found that an evaluator of Education, Geography and some other subjects were found to have been evaluated at the rate of 70 to 76 answer scripts, which this Court held that the same seemed not normal. The process of handing over and taking over of the answer scripts is silent in the rule and that there is no specific rule for maintaining a record by way of a register and there is no mention that who would receive or dispatch the answer scripts. Arguing so, learned counsel submitted that the MPSC may be directed to formulate appropriate and complete evaluation rules for the upcoming examinations so as to avoid further repetition and haunt by the ghost of the MCSCCE, 2016. Arguing so, learned counsel submitted that the MPSC may be directed to formulate appropriate and complete evaluation rules for the upcoming examinations so as to avoid further repetition and haunt by the ghost of the MCSCCE, 2016. In support of her arguments, she has placed the following decisions: (1) Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 (2) Prashat Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 489 (3) Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta, (2015) 11 SCC 395 (4) K.Manjusree v. State of AP, (2008) 3 SCC 512 (5) Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 21. Per contra, Mr. M. Rarry, the learned Additional Advocate General, representing the State as well as the MPSC, submitted that by way of the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019, the MPSC called for applications for MCSCC (Preliminary) Examination, 2019 for selecting candidates for the main examination in order to make recruitment to fill up the posts of Manipur Civil Services, Manipur Police Services, Manipur Finance Services, Sub-Deputy Collectors and the Manipur Secretariat Services. 22. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that when challenge to the MCSCCE, 2016 was made in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017, this Court dismissed the writ petitions holding no patent illegality to have been disclosed which would warrant interference in exercise of power of judicial review, subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Drawing attention of the observations in paragraphs 56 to 62, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that paragraph 56 of the said order deals with Rule 26-A regarding codification and Controller of Examinations; paragraphs 57 to 60 relate to sub-rule (xii) of Rule 26-B, the number of answer books to be provided or sent to each examiner; paragraph 61 made reference to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehar Singh Saini and as per paragraph 62 necessary measures need to be taken by the MPSC not to undermine the credibility of MPSC. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the MPSC took serious note of the observations made by this Court and pursuant to it, certain amendments were made in three stages, thus, the provisions of Rule 21, 26-A(2), 26-A(5), 26-A(8), 26-A(14), 26-B(xii) comprising all the aspects have been amended. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the MPSC took serious note of the observations made by this Court and pursuant to it, certain amendments were made in three stages, thus, the provisions of Rule 21, 26-A(2), 26-A(5), 26-A(8), 26-A(14), 26-B(xii) comprising all the aspects have been amended. He would submit that in the first amendment to the Rules of 2011, necessary amendment regarding codification has been made and according to the amended provision, the codification will be done under the strict supervision of the Secretary with CCTV coverage, which is self-explanatory. Thus, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, proper rules/guidelines have been made in compliance with the direction of this Court dated 28.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017. 24. The learned Additional Advocate General next submitted that as seen from the organisational set up of the Union Public Service Commission and some State Public Service Commission, there is no separate such post as Controller of Examinations, for instance the Public Service Commission of Arunachal Pradesh, the Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat etc. and in some other State Public Service Commission like J&K and Bihar, the Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary are discharging the function of Controller of Examinations. Thus, there is no sanctioned post/separate post of Controller of Examinations and the role and function of Controller of Examinations has been discharged by the Secretary, MPSC for administrative convenience at the relevant point of time. 25. The learned Additional Advocate General then submitted that in the earlier MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2003, it was mentioned that the Secretary, as Head of Department, shall discharge the function of the Controller of Examinations and the practise has been followed as convention. In the present MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011, the Controller of Examinations is given as only function and responsibility and not as a post. He would submit that due to non-availability of eligible officers for promotion, the vacancies of Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary of MPSC have not been filled up at that time. Thus, the Secretary was holding the charge of Controller of Examinations to meet the exigencies. In fact, in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016 etc. He would submit that due to non-availability of eligible officers for promotion, the vacancies of Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary of MPSC have not been filled up at that time. Thus, the Secretary was holding the charge of Controller of Examinations to meet the exigencies. In fact, in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016 etc. batch, this Court has not specifically directed that the Secretary cannot act as Controller of Examinations and as per the conventions practised in the aforesaid State Public Service Commission neither it can be said as irregular nor illegal. 26. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that nowhere in the MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011, it is provided that the Secretary of MPSC cannot be assigned the duty of Controller of Examinations. The exercise for appointment of the Additional Secretary and the Joint Secretary, MPSC was done in order to utilize as Controller of Examinations and in absence of eligible officers to hold the functions of Controller of Examinations, the Secretary, MPSC taking the function of the Controller of Examinations due to exigencies cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. That apart, pursuant to the letters addressed, the Joint Director (DP), Government of Manipur sent a letter dated 15.5.2019 thereby requested to propose for creation of one post of Controller of Examinations, the MPSC to be filled on deputation by MCS or by encadrement to MCS. The MPSC has taken action for framing of Recruitment Rules and has also addressed a letter for creation of one post of Controller of Examinations to the Joint Secretary (DP). 27. The learned Additional Advocate General then submitted that pursuant to the directions given by this Court in W.P.(C) No.803 of 2016, the MPSC has amended the Rules of 2011 from time to time and also initiated steps for appointment of Controller of Examinations on deputation basis. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the petitioners for maintaining these writ petitions and thus prayed for dismissal of the same. 28. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 29. The challenge to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 has been made mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017 dated 28.2.2017. 30. 28. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 29. The challenge to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 has been made mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017 dated 28.2.2017. 30. W.P.(C) Nos.803 and 817 of 2016 has been filed by 111 petitioners/unsuccessful candidates who had appeared in the main examination of MCSCCE, 2016 conducted by the MPSC and they had also sought for instituting a high level probe to investigate into the manner of conduct of examination and for a fresh checking, scrutiny under a separate body and independent body contending that the manner of evaluation of papers, tabulation of marks and the procedure of scrutiny which were done in a hasty manner. 31. In W.P.(C) Nos.803 and 817 of 2016, this Court appointed a retired Judge of the Gauhati High Court as Court Commissioner to be assisted by two other members to inquire into the contentions raised in the writ petitions and to submit a report of findings as to whether the said MCSCCE, 2016 merits quashing. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner inquired the matter and filed a report dated 13.1.2017 to the effect that there is no proof to show that evaluation of answer scripts was not properly done nor any irregularity was found in the conduct of the examination to warrant quashing. The said report was challenged in W.P.(C) No.60 of 2017. 32. By a common order dated 28.2.2017, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions. While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge observed that insofar as W.P.(C) No.60 of 2017 is concerned, the report of the Court Commissioner was based on a limited inquiry into the conduct of the examination by the MPSC and for the satisfaction of the Court as to the existence of any patent and clearly observable illegality or irregularity without directing any exhaustive and elaborate inquiry into the functioning of the MPSC and as such, the question of examining the correctness of the observations made in the report does not arise. 33. Insofar as W.P.(C) Nos.803 and 817 of 2016 are concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that there is no conclusive finding of fact by this Court on various allegations and issues raised in these petitions. 33. Insofar as W.P.(C) Nos.803 and 817 of 2016 are concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that there is no conclusive finding of fact by this Court on various allegations and issues raised in these petitions. The operative portion of the order reads thus: 'Accordingly, these writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 803 of 2016, W.P.(C) No. 817 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No. 60 of 2017 are dismissed as no patent illegality have been disclosed which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review, subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, all such related restraint orders passed by this Court in these proceedings on the final results of the Manipur Civil Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 shall stand lifted. Thus, while dismissing, this Court would direct the Manipur Public Service to do the needful in terms of the observations and directions made, more particularly in the preceding paragraphs no. 55 to 62 as regards codification, evaluation and other matters by laying down the guidelines/instruction so that such allegations and irregularities which form the cause of actions for filing these writ petitions are avoided in future and to ensure credibility of the examination system conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission, which exercise has to be carried out by the MPSC before holding the next Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination and by making amendments in the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011, wherever necessary.' 34. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, W.A.No.19 of 2017 and W.A.No.29 of 2017 came to be filed by the parties. By the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated 28.2.2017, thereby quashed the main examination, 2016 and terminated the services of the successful candidates in the MCSCCE, 2016. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the successful terminated candidates have filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 22.11.2019. 35. After the dismissal of the SLP, on discovery of new material evidence and documents which were not known at the time of passing the judgment dated 18.10.2019, five review petitions were filed by the respondent State and the successful terminated candidates have also filed five review petitions. By the order dated 17.12.2020, all the review petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. By the order dated 17.12.2020, all the review petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Thereafter, assailing the judgment dated 18.10.2019 and the review petitions order dated 17.12.2020, the respondent State filed SLP.No.5680 of 2021. The successful terminated candidates have also filed SLP. Diary No.7244 of 2021 and SLP.Nos.5920-5924 of 2020, which were tagged with SLP.No.5680 of 2021. According to the respondent State, the matter and the issue related to MCSCCE, 2016 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the MPSC to conduct the main examination of MCSCC (Main) Examination, 2016 afresh. 36. According to the respondent State, large number of vacancies has arisen for the aforesaid posts to be filled up by conducting MCSCCE through MPSC and after the setting aside of the MCSCCE, 2016, no MCSCCE has been held and thus large number of important posts have remained vacant and unmanned, resulting in extreme difficulties in running the administration of the State in a smooth manner. Therefore, the impugned notification has been issued for filling up of the posts. 37. Precisely, the challenge to the impugned advertisement was made on the following grounds: (1) The Secretary of MPSC is functioning as Controller of Examinations as no Controller of Examinations has been appointed. Such action of the MPSC is highly illegal and arbitrary and the task of codification is to be done by the Controller of Examinations only. (2) Rules 26-B(vii) of the Rules of 2011 clearly mentioned that guidelines for Centre Supervisors and the invigilators shall be prepared and set by the Controller of Examinations with prior approval of the Secretary. In the case on hand, no Controller of Examinations has been appointed and the Secretary will seek approval from himself and he will give approval which is a highly unfair. (3) As soon as examination with regard to a paper is over and the answer book has been received, the Controller of Examinations shall submit a report to the MPSC through the Secretary indicating the number of candidate who have appeared in examination. In the instant case, the Secretary himself will prepare the report and he will submit the report to himself. In the instant case, the Secretary himself will prepare the report and he will submit the report to himself. (4) As no Controller of Examinations has been appointed by the MPSC, the Secretary has acted as Controller and he will perform that exercise mentioned in Rule 26-B(xi) and as such he will know which fake roll number has been allotted to which candidate though he is not entitled to know the said task. (5) Advertisement for the examination was issued on 8.1.2019 whereas Rule 26-A(v) was amended on 16.3.2019 which is not in conformity with the settled position of law. 38. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that while dismissing W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017, the learned Single Judge of this Court made clear findings regarding the non-appointment of Controller of Examinations by the MPSC and that the Controller of Examinations is responsible for the codification, in which neither the Chairman nor the Secretary to be involved. Their submission is that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of 2011, the evaluation and tabulation of answer books proceeds as the case may, shall be done as per the procedures laid down by the MPSC. However, in the case on hand, nothing has been brought on record as to the procedure laid down by the MPSC for undertaking the evaluation and tabulation. 39. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the MPSC must lay down procedures in writing in advance and not to be left to the discretion of any individual functionary as done in the instant case, which has caused uncertainty and suspicion in the minds of the candidates which were all avoidable. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the paragraphs 56 to 62. For proper appreciation, paragraphs 56 to 62 are extracted hereunder: '[56] As can be seen from above, though various issues have been raised in these writ petitions which have been accordingly dealt with, the substantial portion of the allegations relate to the procedures followed in conducting the examination. As to the procedures to be followed for conducting examination, the same have been provided under Rule 26-A of the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time. Rule 26-B deals with examination programme. As to the procedures to be followed for conducting examination, the same have been provided under Rule 26-A of the Manipur Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time. Rule 26-B deals with examination programme. As regards codification, it has been provided under Sub-rule (9) under Rule 26-A that the codification shall be done in the presence of the Controller of Examination who shall be fully responsible for its safe custody and secrecy. It also states that codification and code number will be kept in the safe custody of the Controller of Examination. It is also mentioned that the marks obtained by each candidate shall not be made known to either the Chairman or to the Members before the Viva Voce in order to maintain integrity and justice in conducting the Competitive Examinations. It has been also provided that the Strong Room shall be under the dual control of the Chairman and Secretary. From the above it is clear that it is the Controller of Examination who is responsible for the codification in which neither the Chairman nor the Secretary are involved. However, it seems the function of the Controller of Examination was discharged by the Secretary as there was no Controller of Examination. As to how the codification has to be taken up and the numbers of persons to be involved in the process, the Rules are silent. Rules, however, provide that codification is a very confidential work where even the Chairman and Members of the Commission are not allowed to know the secrecy of the process of codification. As already discussed above, as to what should be the desirable number of persons who are involved in the codification and how it is to be carried out have not been specifically mentioned in the rules. As to who is the authority to appoint such persons who will be involved in the codification is also silent in the rules. This Court is of the view that since codification is a highly sensitive and confidential matter and regarding some of the said process, rules are silent, proper guidelines need to be laid down. Nothing has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition of the MPSC nor indicated in the record as to whether there are any detail guidelines for it. This Court is of the view that since codification is a highly sensitive and confidential matter and regarding some of the said process, rules are silent, proper guidelines need to be laid down. Nothing has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition of the MPSC nor indicated in the record as to whether there are any detail guidelines for it. Therefore, it is desirable that proper guidelines are laid down as regards the number of persons to be involved in the codification process and the manner of carrying out the process of codification, decodification etc. as the maintenance of confidentiality is indirectly proportionate to the number of persons engaged. In other words, if more persons are involved, the possibility of compromising confidentiality will be higher. This is an issue which needs to be worked out by the MPSC with the aid of the experts and take suitable corrective steps. [57] Sub-rule (xii) of Rule 26-B of the aforesaid rules provides that the number of answer-books to be provided or sent to each examiner shall be fixed by the Controller of Examination with prior approval of the examination Committee. It is not disclosed either in the affidavit-in-opposition nor in the Report as to when the Controller of Examination took such decision about the number of answer-books to be provided to each examiner which are to be examined on an single day. Since serious doubts have arisen because of allowing more than 75 answer scripts in a day, the Controller of Examination can fix the optimum number of answer scripts that can be examined by each examiner on a single day for optimal result and proper evaluation as allowing more than 75 answer sheets to be examined cannot be certainly said to be a desirable and ideal situation, though it may be possible to be accomplished by certain evaluators. It may be also mentioned that under Sub-rule (xviii) of Rule 26-B it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the evaluation & tabulation of answer books or sheets as the case may be, shall be done as per procedures laid down by the Commission. However, nothing has been brought on record as to the procedure laid down by the Commission for undertaking evaluation and tabulation. [58] The observation made by Dr. However, nothing has been brought on record as to the procedure laid down by the Commission for undertaking evaluation and tabulation. [58] The observation made by Dr. P. Milan Khangamcha on the basis of the statement made by the external examiner that he had undertaken the evaluation from around 8:30 am upto 9:30 pm daily with lunch breaks of 1/1:30 hours in between for 7 days continuously cannot certainly be said to be an ideal and desirable situation. Such prolonged daily and continuous evaluation was bound to take a toll on the body and mind of the examiner, howsoever, experienced an examiner might be. Therefore, the concern expressed by the petitioners that there could not have been proper evaluation cannot be said to be illogical or a fantastic one and in the realm of imagination. It is indeed a matter of concern for which corrective steps need to be taken by the MPSC. The observation made by Shri N. Brajakanta Singh, Manipur Judicial Academy who had assisted the Commissioner to the effect that in his opinion the outsider evaluator, even though he had a good enough of extra qualifications, did not evaluate the answer scripts with utmost diligence and thus indicated to the lack of satisfaction about the proper evaluation, is certainly a jarring note to the observation of the Commissioner which must be properly addressed to by the MPSC. [59] The reference to the number of answer scripts being examined by the evaluators in respect of Council of Higher Secondary Education, National Institute of Open Schooling etc. by the petitioners has some significance. The fact that these institutions have placed a limit on the answer scripts to be examined by the evaluators is certainly to ensure that the answer scripts are evaluated properly by giving adequate time to the evaluators to devote optimum time to each answer script. Thus, these institutions have worked out certain optimum number of answer scripts to be evaluated which they consider the most conducive for scrutiny which would give the best result under certain specific conditions and made such stipulation a part of the examination rules. In the present case, it is clearly evident that there is no such examination rule which stipulates the maximum number of answer scripts that can be evaluated by the evaluators. It has been left to the expertise and experience of the evaluator concerned. In the present case, it is clearly evident that there is no such examination rule which stipulates the maximum number of answer scripts that can be evaluated by the evaluators. It has been left to the expertise and experience of the evaluator concerned. This, however, cannot be said to be an ideal and desirable situation, more particularly in a competitive public examination like the present one which this Court is examining. In such a competitive examination, what is of utmost importance is that the Commission, which is conducting this competitive examination, must be seen to be functioning in a fair, transparent manner and by following the rules uniformly for all the candidates as only the most meritorious candidates are to be selected. In the present case, since the MPSC has not framed any rules about the number of answer scripts an evaluator can scrutinise in a day, it cannot be said that any rule has been violated which would call for interference. Thus, in absence of any rules, it will be difficult to hold that evaluating about 76 answer scripts in a day is illegal per se. Yet, the onus of the Commission that it has acted in a fair and transparent manner to be discharged is very high, simply for ensuring credibility of its functioning. Since this is not an ideal situation as is also revealed from the Report of the Commission, such a situation must be avoided in future. This Court has also noted that the MPSC has not offered any explanation as to what prompted it to proceed at such breakneck speed to complete the evaluation within such a short time. Rules also do not provide that the result of the written examination must be declared within specified days. They have neither offered, nor the Report also mentions any such reason which compelled the MPSC to insist on the examiners to evaluate in such a short period of time. The fact that the examiner in Essay had started evaluation around 8:30 am which continued upto 9:00 to 9:30 pm daily with lunch breaks of 1 to 1:30 hrs break in between for 7 days cannot be at all said to be an ideal mode of evaluation, which must be avoided in future. The fact that the examiner in Essay had started evaluation around 8:30 am which continued upto 9:00 to 9:30 pm daily with lunch breaks of 1 to 1:30 hrs break in between for 7 days cannot be at all said to be an ideal mode of evaluation, which must be avoided in future. The MPSC must lay down guidelines and frame rules in this regard to avoid such a scenario in future which has exposed the examination to undue delay and uncertainty. [60] This Court is of the view that since it is a competitive public examination where the Commission is expected to function in the fair and transparent manner, all endeavours should be made to avoid any situation which would lead to creating any doubt on the functioning of the Commission. Though in the present case no material irregularity had been noticed by the Court appointed Commission, in spite of large number of answer scripts being examined, the room of doubt will always remain as to the quality of evaluation. Therefore, it will be always desirable that to obviate any doubt in future which has caused so much of delay in the finalization of the recruitment process, the Commission must lay down the norm for fixing the number of answer scripts to be examined by the evaluators. The Commission may do so in consultation with experts in this field so that neither the examiners are put to undue stress for completing the scrutiny in such short span of time and also to dispel any doubt of improper evaluation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Commission must lay down the procedures in writing in advance and ought not be left to the absolute discretion of any individual functionary as it seems to have been done in the present case which has caused so much uncertainty and suspicion in the mind of the candidates which were all avoidable. Laying down of detail procedure by the Commission as regards evaluation and tabulation would prevent any scope of arbitrariness or any room for suspicion. The functioning of such an important body like the Manipur Public Service Commission can not be left to the absolute discretion of certain functionaries only. There must be properly laid down guidelines/instructions to govern these crucial areas of the examination system. The functioning of such an important body like the Manipur Public Service Commission can not be left to the absolute discretion of certain functionaries only. There must be properly laid down guidelines/instructions to govern these crucial areas of the examination system. [61] It may be noted that the importance of credible functioning of public bodies like the public service commission has been commented in many a decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Mehar Singh Saini, In re, (2010) 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, '6. Higher the public office, greater is the responsibility. The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of functions of the Commission can result in defects not only in the process of selection but also in the appointments to the public offices which, in turn, will affect effectiveness of administration of the State. Most of the democratic countries in the world have set up Public Service Commissions to make the matter of appointments free from nepotism and political patronage. For instance the Conseil d'Etat in France, which is composed of the cream of the French Civil Service, has acquired considerable veneration for its capacity to police intelligently the complex administration of the modern State. Justice J.C. Shah in his report on the excesses of the Emergency, struck by the 'unhealthy factors governing the relationship between Ministers and civil servants', recommended the adoption of droit administratif of the French model by the Government. He observed that the commitment of a public functionary should be to the duties of his office, their due performance with an emphasis on their ethical content and not to the ideologies, political or otherwise of the politicians, who administer the affairs of the State. 7. Great powers are vested in the Commission and therefore, it must ensure that there is no abuse of such powers. The principles of public accountability and transparency in the functioning of an institution are essential for its proper governance. The necessity of sustenance of public confidence in the functioning of the Commission may be compared to the functions of judiciary in administration of justice which was spelt out by Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon2 in the following words: (QB p. 599 F) '... Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The judge was biased'.' 8. (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon2 in the following words: (QB p. 599 F) '... Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The judge was biased'.' 8. The conduct of the Chairman and members of the Commission, in discharge of their duties, has to be above board and beyond censure. The credibility of the institution of the Public Service Commission is founded upon faith of the common man on its proper functioning. Constant allegations of corruption and promotion of family interests at the cost of national interest resulting in invocation of constitutional mechanism for the removal of Chairman/members of the Commission erode public confidence in the Commission. Prof. Brown and Prof. Garner's observation in their treatise French Administrative Law, 3rd Edn. (1983) in this regard can be usefully referred to. They said: 'The standard of behaviour of an administration depends in the last resort upon the quality and traditions of the public officials who compose it rather than upon such sanctions as may be exercised through a system of judicial control.' Of course, the aforesaid observations were made in the context of allegations of misconduct made against the Chairperson and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission. In the present case, though there is no such allegation against any member of the Commission, the aforesaid observations are also apposite in the context of the functioning of the Commission which must be above board and suspicion, since the most meritorious candidates have to be selected to man the prestigious state public service and there must not be any lack of public confidence on the functioning of the Commission nor on the persons so selected by the Commission. [62] It is too fundamental not to be noticed that there are certain public institutions like the Manipur Public Service Commission whose existence and credibility depends to a large extent on the confidence reposed on these by the public at large. Such public institutions cannot remain satisfied on the mere fact that certain allegations of irregularities leveled against them have not been proved. The fact that serious allegations have been made in the functioning of such institutions, even if not proved, certainly puts a serious dent on the prestige and credibility of such institutions. The allegations raised by the petitioners in these batch of petitions cannot be said to be mere figments of imaginations and illusory. The fact that serious allegations have been made in the functioning of such institutions, even if not proved, certainly puts a serious dent on the prestige and credibility of such institutions. The allegations raised by the petitioners in these batch of petitions cannot be said to be mere figments of imaginations and illusory. These are allegations which have the potential of seriously damaging the image of the Manipur Public Service Commission. Therefore, it is important that those who are involved with the functioning of the Manipur Public Service Commission take all the necessary measures not to allow the credibility of such institutions to be undermined by such complaints. After all, the credibility of such public institutions in a democratic society like ours depends to a large extent on the positive public perception of their functioning. Any negative public perception of the functioning would tend to lower the prestige and credibility of such institutions.' Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, despite the aforesaid clear cut findings, the MPSC has proceeded to conduct the preliminary examination of MCSCCE, 2019 without making proper amendments in the Rules of 2011. 40. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even after setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.2.2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.803, 817 of 2016 and 60 of 2017, the Hon'ble Division Bench, in its judgment dated 18.10.2019, was pleased to observe the lapses and irregularities committed by the MPSC while conducting the MCSCCE, 2016. In the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that non-appointment of the Controller of Examinations has defeated the very purpose of the examination to be conducted by the MPSC. 41. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Division Bench further held that any exercise of power by the governmental authorities, including the MPSC, without following the procedure prescribed in law is bad. The learned counsel added that since the procedure as regards the evaluation and tabulation of answer sheets has not been laid down by the MPSC and many irregularities have been committed by it and one of which being that there is no record of handing over and taking over of answer sheets. 42. The learned counsel added that since the procedure as regards the evaluation and tabulation of answer sheets has not been laid down by the MPSC and many irregularities have been committed by it and one of which being that there is no record of handing over and taking over of answer sheets. 42. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since the examination of MCSCCE, 2016 was quashed and consequently, the services of the successful selected candidates were terminated, the order dated 28.2.2017 can no longer hold water nor such plea can be entertained in law. He would submit that while passing the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to allow the appeals and consequently, the order dated 28.2.2017 of the learned Single Judge was fully set aside. Thus, the order dated 28.2.2017 being quashed and set aside, the obiter dicta and ratio decidendi of the said judgment is no longer operative, as the judgment has been declared to be null and void ab-initio without any value in law. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioners solely relying upon and based on the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.2.2017 can no longer be sustained. 43. This Court finds some force in the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General that once the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.2.2017 is totally quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the very basis or foundation for filing the present writ petitions based on the observations made in the order dated 28.2.2017 can no longer stand and it is bound to fall. 44. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the respondent State as well as the selected candidates have preferred review applications and the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Assailing the order passed in the review petitions as well as the judgment in the writ appeals, SLPs were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court finally passed an order in the SLP by the respondent State on 11.02.2022 directing the MPSC to conduct MCSCC (Main) Examination, 2016 within four months. While that being the position now, this Court is obliged to follow the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.02.2022. 45. While that being the position now, this Court is obliged to follow the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.02.2022. 45. It appears that pending present writ petitions, the petitioners sought interim order and while the writ petitions were taken up for hearing on 10.5.2019, this Court passed an interim order suspending the preliminary examination of MCSCCE, 2019. Some of the paragraphs, including the operative portion of the order dated 10.5.2019, are relevant and the same are quoted hereunder: 'In that view of the matter, without expressing much opinion on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case in their favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Preliminary Examination of the Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2019 scheduled to be held on 12th May, 2019 shall remain suspended till the next returnable date. This Court is also conscious of the fact that there are thousands of aspirants vying for selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.1.2019 particularly taking into consideration that this is one of the most prestigious examination conducted by the MPSC. In that view of the matter, this Court does not want to keep the matter lingering for a long time. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file affidavit as well as take appropriate instructions on or before 15th of May, 2019. Thereafter, if any rejoinder affidavit is to be filed by the petitioners, they may do so on or before the 20th of May, 2019. List the matters again on 20th of May, 2019, on which date, an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the writ petitions.' 46. The respondent State has filed vacate stay petitions contending that subsequent to the order dated 28.2.2017, the MPSC has taken steps for framing of Recruitment Rules and accordingly, the MPSC submitted proposal for creation of one post of Controller of Examinations to the Joint Secretary (DP) and vide order dated 29.8.2019 itself one Dr.Mayengbam Veto Singh, MCS has been posted as Controller of Examinations and also suitably amended the Rules of 2011. 47. 47. The appointment by way of transfer and posting of Dr.Mayengbam Veto Singh as Controller of Examinations has been objected by the petitioners stating that the post of Controller of Examinations is a very highly responsible post for the conduct of the examination and for such post, the qualification and experiences relevant for that purpose. 48. As could be seen from the records, after passing of the interim order dated 10.5.2019, on 29.8.2019 the State Government appointed Dr. Mayengbam Veto Singh as Controller of Examinations, MPSC and he has also taken charge on 4.9.2019. Subsequently, based on the order dated 11.3.2020, Kh. Lalamani Singh, MCS has been holding the charge of Controller of Examinations, MPSC. The said fact has not been seriously disputed by the petitioners. 49. The petitioners have also filed miscellaneous petitions to direct the MPSC to conclude MCSCCE 2016 main examination before it proceeds with the MCSCCE 2019 examination by stating that the MPSC is under a duty to conduct MCSCCE 2016 from the stage of main examination in terms of the judgment dated 18.10.2019 passed in W.A.No.19 of 2017. 50. As stated supra, the selected terminated candidates have filed SLP Diary No.39519 of 2019 against the judgment dated 18.10.2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the order dated 22.11.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order: 'Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. Based on the report of the Commission the impugned order is passed which cannot be said to be erroneous. We find from the report of the Commission that sufficient material is gathered through investigation in transparent manner. Illegality committed go to the root of the matter which vitiates the entire process of the selection. Hence, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. The selected candidates shall be permitted to appear in the examination afresh. The objection relating to the overage should not be raised. We make it clear that we have not commented anything with regard to CBI investigation. We hope that the Manipur Public Service Commission will hold the main examination afresh as early as possible. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.' 51. There is no dispute that as against judgment dated 18.10.2019, the successful terminated candidates have preferred SLPs and the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We hope that the Manipur Public Service Commission will hold the main examination afresh as early as possible. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.' 51. There is no dispute that as against judgment dated 18.10.2019, the successful terminated candidates have preferred SLPs and the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, on discovery of new material evidence which were not known at the time of passing the judgment dated 18.10.2019, the respondent State filed five review petitions and similarly, the successful terminated candidates have filed five review petitions. By the common order dated 17.12.2020, the aforesaid ten review petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2020, the respondent State filed SLP(C) Diary No.5680 of 2021 with delay petition. Similarly, the successful terminated candidates have filed SLP Diary No.7244 of 2021 and SLP Nos.5920-5924 of 2020, which are clubbed with the SLP.No.5680 of 2021 filed by the respondent State. When the said SLPs were taken up for hearing on 11.2.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order: 'Delay condoned. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions by directing the parties to abide by the following arrangements: 1. The Manipur Public Service Commission will conduct the main examination of Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016 afresh not later than 4 (Four) months from today. 2. Only those candidates (successful/unsuccessful) who had appeared in the main examination conducted in September, 2016 will be eligible to appear in the proposed examination. 3. In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts. We make it clear that for the nature of order that we have passed, we have not dilated on the grievances made in the review petition or for that matter the present special leave petitions by the concerned petitioners nor be understood have affirmed the opinion of the High Court on those aspects. In other words, all questions raised in the present set of special leave petitions are left open. The special leave petitions are disposed, in the above terms. In other words, all questions raised in the present set of special leave petitions are left open. The special leave petitions are disposed, in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.' 52. The challenge to MCSCCE 2016 is relates to the main examination and the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 relates to the preliminary examination of MCSCCE 2019. There is no dispute that selection in regard to the main examination of MCSCCE 2016 has been set aside and the selected candidates were also terminated and against the order of termination they have preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, by way of an interim order dated 10.5.2019, the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 was stayed and the stay till continues. 53. When the SLPs filed by the respondent State and the successful terminated candidates were taken up for hearing on 11.2.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order directing the respondents to conduct the main examination of MCSCCE 2016 afresh not later than four months from the date of passing of the order. While directing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that only those candidates (successful/unsuccessful) who had appeared in the main examination conducted in September, 2016 will be eligible to appear in the proposed examination and in the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of the results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the reconducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued such direction, going contrary the said direction is inappropriate. The judicial discipline requires the High Court to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.2.2022. 54. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.2.2022, which was passed pending the present writ petitions and coming to the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019 calling for applications for MCSCC (Preliminary) Examination, 2019 under the Manipur Public Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2018 for selecting candidates for the main examination for recruitment to the posts in question, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Secretary is functioning as Controller of Examinations and no Controller of Examinations has been appointed, cannot be accepted. 55. 55. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the MPSC had issued the impugned advertisement, they are prevented from changing or amending the relevant Rules for conducting the said examination. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva voce test was illegal.' 56. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the learned Single Judge in its order dated 28.2.2017 has pointed out the irregularities and illegalities committed by the MPSC due to the non-appointment of Controller of Examinations and also not laying down specific rules and procedures for evaluation, tabulation and codification etc. Though the said order was quashed and set aside by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 18.10.2019, still the Hon'ble Division Bench pointed out various irregularities committed by the MPSC during the competitive examination of 2016. 57. By placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohaty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. In paragraph 37 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam [ (1998) 3 SCC 381 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 872 : AIR 1998 SC 1289 ] , Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra [ (2005) 3 SCC 422 : AIR 2005 SC 1964 ] and Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. [ (2010) 10 SCC 677 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 315 : AIR 2010 SC 3823 ])' 58. It is the say of the respondent State as well as the MPSC that the Joint Director (DP), Government of Manipur has sent a letter dated 15.5.2019 thereby requested to propose for creation of one post of Controller of Examinations, MPSC to be filled on deputation by MCS or by encadrement to MCS. Accordingly, the MPSC took up necessary action for framing of Recruitment Rules and thereafter, vide letter dated 16.5.2019, the MPSC submitted proposal for creation of one post of Controller of Examination to the Joint Director (DP) along with Form 8 and 9 which are the Recruitment Rules. Though the petitioners contended that whether the said Recruitment Rules has been finalized or not, the said submission is not supported by any materials. On the other hand, now the fact reveals that the respondent State appointed the Controller of Examinations. 59. As could be seen from the records and submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General now the Rules of 2011 has been suitably amended and the amended Rules will take care of the competitive examination in question. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the amended rule regarding procedure to be followed for conducting examination, evaluation and interview as also the evaluation of answer scripts. 60. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the amended rule regarding procedure to be followed for conducting examination, evaluation and interview as also the evaluation of answer scripts. 60. On a reading of the amended provisions, specifically, Rule 26(A) of the Rules of 2011, it is clear that the said provision deals with the procedure to be followed for conducting the examination, evaluation and interview. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the respondents are to follow the procedure as laid down in the Rules of 2011 while conducting the competitive examination. Further, this Court is also of the view that now the Controller of Examinations has been appointed and the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed. 61. In view of the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.2.2022 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.5680 of 2021 etc. batch, supra, this Court is of the view that now the petitioners cannot raise the aforesaid arguments as narrated infra since the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the MPSC to conduct the main examination of MCSCC (Main) Examination, 2016 afresh within a period of four months. 62. There is no dispute that now a responsible officer is holding the charge of Controller of Examinations, MPSC. That apart, in view of the amendments made in the Rules of 2011, the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned advertisement. Since the petitioners are aggrieved persons of the MCSCC (Main) Examination 2016 and the petitioners and similarly situated persons have been permitted to appear in the main examination for MCSCCE 2016 to be conducted pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.2.2022, now they have no right to challenge the impugned advertisement dated 8.1.2019. 63. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief sought for in the writ petitions, as their grievances have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the order dated 11.2.2022. 64. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim stay already granted by this Court shall stand vacated. Consequently, the vacate stay petitions filed by the respondent State are allowed and the other miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioners stand closed. The respondent authorities may proceed further as per the impugned notification dated 08.01.2019 expeditiously.