Editor,
When the new APPSC body was constituted, its office bearers pledged to ensure transparency and uphold merit-based selection. Much to public curiosity, the commission made multiple visits to various state PSCs, introduced new logo designs, and even invited public suggestions for refining its examination manuals. But contrary to its flashy exhibitions, the commission soon regressed to its original state of inefficiency.
The clearest sign of this came when it issued the advertisement for APPSCCE 2024 just three months before the exam date – shockingly close to university semester exams. Despite repeated requests from students and activists to reconsider the schedule, the commission adamantly stuck to its decision. As expected, the preliminary exam was marred by several wrong questions in both GS Paper 1 and CSAT.
In the case of the mains exam, the commission went completely silent for four months, only to ambush aspirants with a
shocking notification just a day before the examination. During the entire imbroglio, aspirants demanded a transparent recruitment process, but the commission, in its trademark tone-deafness, mistook this as a call for ‘transparent pens’.
Now the commission may ask: What’s wrong with a transparent pen? Here’s the answer: everything. The ergonomics of a pen – its grip, girth, tip thickness, and writing smoothness – directly affect an aspirant’s performance. When one has to answer 20 questions in three hours at an average speed of 25-30 words per minute, the pen becomes a critical tool. Aspirants spend months selecting a pen they trust under pressure. This would not have been an issue had the notification been released weeks before the exam, giving us time to adjust. But no – it was dropped like a bomb at the last moment.
Amidst the shock over the pen directive, the traffic advisory stated that candidates must leave home two hours in advance. But what it failed to account for was the mere two-hour gap between the first and second sessions in a day. Was the commission expecting us to write the second paper on an empty stomach?
And then came the real harassment inside the exam halls. Many students – due to poor communication – carried opaque pens after GS-2 and GS-3. Invigilators had wildly different interpretations of exam protocols. They didn’t allow us to tear off the question paper, forcing us to constantly flip back and forth while writing. Some invigilators went as far as disallowing bathroom breaks even 30 minutes before the start of the exam – despite the fact that question papers hadn’t even been distributed. These rigid, irrational rules added unnecessary psychological stress to an already high-pressure environment.
When the mains results were declared, some candidates visited the commission to enquire about the physical efficiency test (PET), as both the old and new PET requirements were mentioned in the advertisement. To our utter disbelief, the commission itself was clueless. Their response? “Be ready for the old PET.” But when the PET notification was finally released, it bizarrely contained both the old and new criteria.
As per the rules, the amended PET should have been implemented. Nevertheless, candidates complied with the notice and appeared for the PET on 18 and 19 of this month. Then, as if this mockery wasn’t enough, the commission released a list of PET-qualified candidates, stating that some parts of the PET had been omitted. How on earth did this happen?
The secretary of the APPSC was physically present at the PET venue. She saw the candidates struggling. Yet, a contradictory notification was issued at midnight, claiming that some components had been scrapped.
Now the questions are: What about candidates who didn’t appear for the PET because they were certain they couldn’t clear the 6/8 obstacle requirement? What about candidates who suffered sprains and injuries practicing rope climbs and walls – and missed the PET entirely due to these injuries?
Whatever the so-called logic behind these missteps, the commission’s repeated misadventures raise serious doubts about the transparency and integrity of the entire recruitment process. The question now stands loud and clear: Is the commission deliberately trying to benefit select candidates of personal interest? Otherwise, what explains this stream of contradictory, confusing, and incompetent notifications?
I urge the state government, community-based organizations, and student unions to take this matter with utmost seriousness. The past fiasco has not only tarnished the image of the state but has also ruined the hopes and careers of many potential officers. The apex recruiting body of the state cannot be allowed to be run by inefficient individuals acting on whim and fancy. Arunachal Pradesh deserves better. Its youths deserve better. And the future of this state depends on it.
An aspirant