Editor,
I would like to draw the attention of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the fact that in a democratic society, the integrity of public recruitment processes is not just a procedural necessity – it is a reflection of the values we hold dear.
Recent developments in the shortlisting of candidates for the assistant engineer (AE) recruitment examination have raised serious concerns about transparency, fairness, and adherence to officially advertised norms.
As per the recruitment guidelines, the number of candidates shortlisted for the main examination should be tentatively 12 times the number of available posts.
However, in the case of civil engineering, the shortlisting process appears to deviate from this standard. The commission has shortlisted 1,205 candidates for departments such as PWD, PHE, UD & Local Bodies.
There were 414 candidates for departments like HP, WRD, and RWD, of which approximately 360 candidates are taken from the initial pool of 1,205, leaving approximately 845 candidates excluded from consideration for HP, WRD, and RWD.
Such differentiation of civil aspirants is against the principle of natural justice.
This exclusion raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of the process.
Some questions demand answers:
1. What criteria were used to exclude approximately 845 candidates from eligibility for HP, WRD? The lack of clarity suggests an arbitrary approach that undermines the principles of merit-based selection.
2. Why were approximately 360 candidates given an apparent advantage? Was there a deliberate preference shown towards a particular group? If not, what justifies this segregation at the preliminary stage?
3. Is the commission maintaining impartiality? The recruitment process must be free from bias, favouritism, or any form of integrity?
4. Is there a resurgence of the ‘cash-for-jobs’ scandal that had marred the previous AE recruitment?
The public deserves assurance that such malpractices are not being repeated.
As a concerned citizen, I urge the commission to:
Clarify the rationale behind the selection of 364 candidates and the exclusion of 841 others.
Rectify the preliminary results to reflect a fair and uniform shortlisting ratio as per the advertised norms.
Ensure transparency and strict adherence to the officially notified recruitment rules.
The credibility of the commission and the trust of thousands of aspirants hinge on the fairness of this process. It is imperative that the authorities uphold the highest standards of equity and transparency in public recruitment.
Therefore, the commission needs to answer the aforementioned questions and come clean.
Let merit prevail. Let justice be done.
Giogi Achung