Imphal, January 05 2008: In a significant verdict, the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court has asked the State respondents to furnish the answer scripts of 136 candidates who have been selected for the post of Sub-Inspector in the State Police Department for rechecking before the Court.

In his Imphal Bench sitting today, Justice TNK Singh passed the verdict following a writ petition field by one Thokchom Roson Singh (26) of Kongba Bazar.

Advocate M Hemchandra Singh who is appearing on behalf of Roson said that the writ petition has been filed against alleged mark tampering, gross material irregularities, illegality, bianess, malafide, favourtism and nepotism in the selection process.

Roson has filed the petition after going through his own answer sheet extracted from the Government though the Right to Information Act praying before the Court to quash the Government notification dated June 17, 2008 of selecting 137 candidates and 14 waiting list candidates for appointment as SIs and put on hold the issuance of appointment orders to them till the disposal of the writ petition, the Advocate informed.

Accepting the petition, the Court has directed the State respondents to produce the answer scripts under seal cover so that an expert body can recheck them and that of the petitioner.

Passing the verdict, the Court has also declared that the appointment order of the selected candidates for the post of SI shall be subjected to the outcome of the present writ petition.

The State represented by the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Home), Director General of Police along with the selected candidates and some others who are in the waiting list are the respondents in this case.

While issuing the rule to the State making its returnable within four weeks, the Court has also directed that the appointment order of the last selected candidate (137th position) namely Pradeep Kangabam shall not be issued till the disposal of the writ position.

Roson said that his answer sheet 'was tampered with and manipulated, marks were not given for questions he had answered correctly and correct answers were deliberately crossed as false apart from the fact that even if the marks were given they were inadequate'.

Comment