Log in

More irregularities on MCSCCE (Main) 2016 exam unfolds; Forensic report raised doubts over the genuineness of examiner signature

Imphal, Jan 12: Group of aspirants sent only 5(five) samples (Photocopy of the answer scripts) of the signature of the examiner of essay subject for the MCSCCE (Main) 2016, to the “Truth Labs : Forensic Services” on 1/12/2017 for verifying whether the signatures are of the same examiner. The said report was received on dated 8/01/2018. It can be mentioned that, The Truth Labs: Forensic Services is India’s first independent forensic science laboratory whose advisory board has former Chief Justice of India, former Chairman Law Commission of India, former Vigilance Commissioner etc.
The candidates who got their RTI copies of the answer scripts observed that there is a wide variation in the signature of the examiner of the essay paper which according to the MPSC was evaluated by only one expert/examiner. On suspicion of forged signatures by different persons other than the assigned examiner, the candidates pursued on their independent capacity to verify the alleged matter. The forensic report proves the contention of the candidates.

The forensic report is of the view that out of the 5(five) signatures that had been examined, only 3(three) signatures (Q1[candidate with code 62938], Q2[candidate with code 93686] & Q5 [candidate with code 50950]) are of the same person while for the remaining 2(two), the report raised serious doubts whether they are of the same person or not. For Q3 [candidate with code 61384], the signature could not be analyzed as the signature shows some discontinuity. And one important finding of a report is that, the signature Q4 [candidate with code 86815] is done slowly and is a defective reproduction. It may be noted that the signatures which are done slowly usually leads to case of forged signature. Upon consulting the experts of the lab regarding whether they could give a definite opinion whether the signature Q4 belonged to a different person other than the examiner, they told that they can give a definite opinion only when the specimen/original signature of the examiner is provided to them. Moreover, the expert(s) of the lab is/are willing to testify their findings in any court of law if summoned during the course of legal proceedings. It is important to point out here that the Group of Aspirants could afford to send and verify only 5(five) signatures due to financial constrains. We are of the opinion that if appropriate authority directs to conduct a thorough investigation into the said matter, many more cases of such forgery will unearth. Nevertheless, now the onus lies on the MPSC to explain why there was a need to engage other person(s) other than the examiner for evaluation.

Leave a comment

Please do not post Hate Speech, derogatory, racist, obscene, spam comments.