Flouting norms in the garb of mercy
One cannot ignore the anguish of the more deserving candidates who were deprived of a level playing field in the controversy surrounding the MCSCCE 2016.
The legal complications surrounding the controversial MCSCCE 2016 has been dragging its feet for more than three years with no tangible solution in sight. The controversy was in fact brought over from the Congress regime. In December 2017, the high court removed the restriction on declaring the result of MCSCCE 2016 interview as no prima facie evidence could be collected at that moment. The enquiry commission so set up under the high court’s order reported that there were no errors or discrepancies to be found in the answer scripts or the evaluation process. As such, the result was declared and the selected candidates were given appointments. However, while dismissing the case, the high court specifically mentioned that the petitioners may file a new writ petition after getting the RTI copies of answer scripts and if new irregularities were found. A new writ petition was filed. A second enquiry committee was formed which drew attention to the large number of discrepancies in the evaluation process. Based on the prima facie evidence, the high court quashed the MCSCCE 2016 Mains exam. Liberty was given to MPSC for conducting the said exam afresh. A CBI probe was also ordered to find the culprits.
Then, the selected but quashed candidates appealed to the Supreme Court. But, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the high court to quash and re-conduct the exam afresh. Subsequent to this, the government along with the selected but quashed candidates filed a review petition at the high court to reconsider its earlier judgement quashing the MCSCCE 2016 Main exam. However, this review petition was again dismissed in December 2020, with the high court showing dismay at the favouritism shown by the government to the selected but quashed candidates. Now, these selected candidates would certainly go for an appeal to the Supreme Court again. We certainly empathise with the plight of the selected candidates whose appointment were quashed and the scorn faced by them at the societal level. Yet, one also cannot ignore the anguish of the more deserving candidates who were deprived of a level playing field in the controversy surrounding the MCSCCE 2016.
Strange but true, some scheming minds have been brewing a concoction to somehow rehabilitate some of the selected but quashed candidates to the government jobs earlier held by them before joining state civil services. This is a fallout of the rejection of the review petition filed by the selected candidates of the MCSCCE 2016 candidates in 2020. These candidates had resigned from their respective posts held by them prior to their appointment on April 18, 2017 as MCS, MPS and SDCs. And, it has been more than three years since their resignation. Both the Government of India and state government rules and regulations stipulate that the question of withdrawal of resignation by a government official shall be considered when the period of absence from duty is not more than 90 days after resignation. In the matter of service lien, a Government employee which was automatically suspended from the date of his relief in the parent department shall automatically get terminated in the parent department on the date on which his probation is declared in the new department or on the date on which his probation is deemed to have been declared in the new department, or on the date on which he or she completes 3 years of service in the new department, whichever is earlier. So, where is the window?