MTS recruitment row puts RIMS under spotlight

The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, long projected as a premier public healthcare and medical education institution in the Northeast, is now facing sustained public scrutiny over its Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) recruitment process. What was intended as a routine hiring exercise for 131 posts has escalated into a controversy marked by allegations of administrative insensitivity, questionable logistical decisions, and serious concerns over verification failures.
The written examination for the MTS posts was conducted on November 12, 2023, across centres in Imphal and Guwahati. The decision to include an out-of-state examination centre has triggered sharp criticism, particularly in light of the prevailing situation in Manipur during that period, which was already marked by violence, displacement, and severe economic disruption.
For a large number of aspirants from economically vulnerable households, the requirement to travel to Guwahati imposed a significant financial burden. Airfare, accommodation, and daily expenses placed the examination beyond the reach of several candidates, effectively excluding them from a recruitment process for low-grade support staff positions in a state-funded institution located within their own region.
This has raised pointed questions over administrative judgment within RIMS. Critics question whether there was any compelling operational necessity to shift examination centres outside Manipur for MTS-level recruitment, a category that does not ordinarily require specialised national-level examination infrastructure. The absence of a clear public explanation from the RIMS administration has further intensified speculation and dissatisfaction.
The outcome of the recruitment has compounded the controversy. Available figures indicate that out of 131 posts, only 13 candidates from Manipur were selected, including three under Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories and ten across General and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories combined. If accurate, these numbers have fuelled concerns regarding disproportionate representation and whether local candidates were effectively disadvantaged in a state-based public institution.
Allegations of procedural vulnerability gained further traction following the arrest of one Jitendra Meena by Lamphel Police. He is accused of securing an MTS appointment at RIMS through impersonation linked to an organised fraud network. The case reportedly surfaced after biometric verification revealed a mismatch in fingerprint data during scrutiny, exposing gaps in recruitment verification protocols that are now under public questioning.
The controversy is no longer confined to selection statistics or examination logistics. It has also reopened debate on the functional realities of hospital staffing, where MTS personnel serve as frontline facilitators between patients and institutional services. In a state where linguistic diversity and socio-cultural familiarity play a critical role in healthcare access, concerns have been raised that inadequate consideration of local language competence may directly affect patient experience in a public hospital system.
The issue has also drawn comparative attention to developments in neighbouring Meghalaya, where recruitment-related objections at the North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences prompted intervention by the Khasi Students’ Union, resulting in the suspension of the recruitment process pending review. The contrast has been cited as an example of stronger institutional accountability mechanisms in similar regional contexts.
In Manipur, however, there is growing unease over what is perceived as limited institutional and civil society scrutiny of recruitment processes affecting local youth. The absence of sustained questioning from influential stakeholders is increasingly being viewed as a gap in accountability, particularly at a time when unemployment pressures remain high and public trust in institutions is already fragile.
The RIMS MTS recruitment controversy has thus evolved into more than an administrative dispute. It now stands as a focal point of wider concerns over transparency, procedural fairness, and the alignment of institutional decisions with the socio-economic realities of the population the institution is meant to serve.