The High Court’s stay on declaring Group-I recruitment results did not come as a surprise. Ever since the marks memo and GRL (General Ranking List) were announced by the TGPSC (Telangana State Public Service Commission) the air was ominous. There was palpable unease in all sections concerned with the recruitment, which gathered steam by the day, eventually becoming more incisive and strident. Candidates who chose Telugu as their medium of examination were particularly not merely upset but were agitated with the marks awarded to them and the final ranks they were either allotted or excluded from the GRL. The contentions raised before the High Court have lent further strength to aberrations that were aired widely. Specific among them are instances of wrong totaling, abnormal number of (rather near cent per cent) rank holders from Urdu medium, skewed number of high-ranking candidates from certain exam centers, choice of evaluators, and disadvantage suffered by Telugu medium candidates.
The potential for an impending problem lay in the very syllabus prescribed in the papers for the main exam. Geography became part of History in paper II; society and knowledge of social movements are part of paper III, which is intended to test a candidate’s knowledge of the Indian constitution; economy and environment are together in paper IV. It is anybody’s guess how a history evaluator is to assess an answer to a geography question. No less is the challenge of an evaluator of one discipline having to assess the answers outside his domain in papers III &IV. It is alleged, and perhaps rightly by the unsuccessful candidates that evaluation was done mechanically and rather perfunctorily. It is also widely alleged that the evaluation was done to meet certain deadlines. Critical analysis made by certain experts in the field of coaching for competitive exams also points to a very disturbing fact that a mere less than five minutes was spent in evaluating a paper, given the number of papers evaluated and the time taken to announce results. On top of everything, observers point out that the choice of evaluators left much to be desired.
The stay on declaring final results ordered by the High Court in light of facts and circumstances placed before it could not have been more appropriate. This is not the first instance that has happened in the history of recruitment by the Commission. It is not the first time either that the Commission conducted such exams. Sadly, lessons from the past are not learnt, resulting in the recurrence of past mistakes. The brunt, however, has always been borne by the aspirants and at the cost of their prime youth.
As things stand, it is well-nigh impossible to predict the outcome of the litigation pending before the High Court. Should it end in scrapping the exam it is bound to cause unimaginable agony to the aspirants. Who will indemnify them against loss of time? Isn’t it time the Commission went into a huddle and introspected? In fact, soon after assuming office, the Chairman and members visited UPSC to study their practices and processes. One wonders whether anything has been learnt!
Conversely perception of the government about the Commission, its autonomy, and role must change. It should not be seen as a rehabilitation center to extend political patronage. Diligence in choosing members and the Chairman is of utmost importance. The financial and administrative autonomy of the Commission must be non-negotiable. The Constitution does envisage a clear role for such an institution. But do we have the vision to see is the question nagging us all. Inability to appreciate the intent of the constitution and lack of acumen to carry out the intent has become a hallmark of the state public service commission for a long time. The result is for us all to see. Recruitments for long ran into rough weather, which is why the Commission finds itself at the crossroads time and again. (The author is a former Member of TSPSC)
