Editor,
Recently, the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission announced a 1:3 shortlisting ratio for the recruitment of 145 assistant professor posts (2026), with shortlisting based on UGC Regulations 2018, Appendix II, Table 3B.
While we respect the regulatory framework, we humbly submit that the application of this criterion in the present context may unintentionally exclude a large number of deserving candidates.
This recruitment is being conducted after nearly seven years, during which thousands of qualified candidates have been waiting for a single opportunity. Under the current shortlisting system, many such candidates may lose even the chance to appear for the interview.
Our primary concern arises from the disproportionate advantage given to PhD holders, who receive 25 marks directly, making it nearly impossible for equally competent candidates, especially those with substantial teaching experience but without a PhD, to compete at the shortlisting stage.
We respectfully place the following issues for your kind consideration.
1. Inequality to evaluation systems:
Many aspirants completed their UG and PG under the annual (year) system, where securing high percentages was significantly more difficult. In contrast, candidates from the semester system, especially during the Covid period, often secured higher percentages with relative ease.
Additionally, candidates from certain outside universities show consistently higher marks. Treating these unequal academic contexts as equal is inherently unfair to those who studied under the older system.
2. Limited access to PhD opportunities:
Arunachal Pradesh has only one major PhD awarding university – Rajiv Gandhi University – with very limited seats. Moreover, as a central university, nearly 50% of seats are filled by non-APST candidates. Financial constraints prevent many local candidates from pursuing PhD programmes outside the state. As a result, their right to even appear in the interview is effectively denied.
3. Impact on APST candidates in unreserved seats:
Out of the total posts, approximately 28 are unreserved. Under the present shortlisting method, APST candidates without a PhD stand virtually no chance of competing for these seats, whereas a revised ratio could have allowed at least fair representation in the shortlist.
In view of these genuine concerns, we humbly request the commission to reconsider or revise the shortlisting ratio, keeping in mind that this recruitment is taking place after a very long gap and carries immense significance for an entire generation of aspirants.
We trust in the wisdom, fairness, and sensitivity of the commission and sincerely hope that the aspirations of deserving candidates will be protected.
Aspiring candidates