The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism, and most importantly, the accomplishment of error free selection process. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service.
Ironically, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) seems to be not living upto it. In the recently conducted Agriculture Development Officer (ADO) exam lots of anomalies has been reported.
Several candidates were not awarded mark i,e. awarded zero mark against their confident answers. It has become a standing joke that a professional guy brings back a big zero after his four years of hard toil, and despite his several months of hardest struggle for the exam. This has left many in the state of insecurity and dejection. And the same case was reported in the preceding A.E exam.
Therefore, the Commission should take a critical note of it; review their written marks awarding policy as done in Viva-voce marks.
In a nutshell, there should be moderation in written (subjective). Atleast a grace mark should be awarded for suitably attempted 10 marks question rather than simply awarding 0.
Here I am not in position to step into the shoes of the examiner to evaluate the answer script of a candidate but the mechanism of the kind that I am suggesting would instill a sense of accountability in the minds of the examiners who would then take their task of making assessment of answer sheets more seriously. If such a system is evolved, the results of the process of revaluation could also provide valuable information to the Commission to determine how the particular evaluators are discharging their duties and responsibilities, which is extremely crucial not only from the point of view of the candidates, but also from the point of view of the organisation/entity who entrusts the selection process in the hands of the evaluators.