Let us wait for the verdict

Dear Editor,
This is apropos the letter, ‘Solution to APPSCCE fiasco’, by one Dite Pertin. The appeal made was worth appreciating, but it is too late for such an appeal.
Arunachal is famous for compensation and compromise when it comes to resolve any issue. The 2017 APPSCCE fiasco was a state issue and not only of aggrieved or any other aspirants. Apart from being a ‘guardian’ of merits, the APPSC is also an indirectly active part of the executive: one of the essential legs of the state government. It is not the aggrieved aspirants but the APPSC that had declared on 4 June in this esteemed daily that its intention is clear and it would take this fiasco to the higher court if the verdict goes against it.
The commission stated that it took enough measures to address all the concerns of the aspirants and had gone ahead with the exam, but then, why did the commission declare in its affidavit that indeed there were 64 questions which were out of syllabus before the commencement of the mains exam?
Furthermore, the secretary of the commission agreed that its staffers provided the wrong answer keys in the OMR sheet, and that indeed there were mistakes and errors. The video footage and statements are available in all local print and electronic media.
The APPSC has also violated Clause 11 of Schedule 2 of the APPSCC Rules, 2001, by declaring the second prelims’ results on 16 August, 2018 (in which 76 candidates from Geography C series were qualified), whereas the commission can apply this schedule only before the declaration of the result.
The APPSC knows that our country’s legal system has lots of loopholes and for a constitutional body there would be a different way out. The commission knows the financial strain on aggrieved aspirants, and in the long legal battle the commission will easily overrun the aggrieved aspirants, and that is why the APPSC is seeking this protective layer as its asylum.
The errors in questions were not spotted only in one subject but errors were found in many optional question papers like law, history, geography, public administration, civil engineering, philosophy, etc. The geography and law optional papers had several questions from the National Eligibility Test for JRF (Junior Research Fellowship), 2014. It is clearly mentioned on page number nine of the APPSC prospectus that “the standard and syllabi of the subjects are approximately those of degree level course of the Indian universities.”
Hence, the questions which were taken from the NET (JRF) 2014 were of postgraduate standards. The commission has not yet disclosed whether it had compensated all other optional subjects or only to geography and commerce optional subjects. In either case the commission will find itself in controversy.
Article 14 of the constitution of India reads: “The state shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Furthermore, Article 16 gives the guarantee of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. All the aspirants who appeared for the 2017 and 2018 prelims exams are equal before the law and, as per the constitution of India, they shall have equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
Today who are depriving the aspirants of their rights? It is the APPSC that must take responsibility for such tragedy. It is because of the commission’s repetitive blunder that the aspirants are losing their precious time, energy and money.
Nowadays people are so weak that they fail to raise their voice; so mean that they see nothing except their own interests; so blind that they fail to see the repetitive blunders of the commission since its inception; so cowardly that they cannot question such a hollow commission which has frequently deprived aspirants of their rights and provisions provided in the constitution of India.
Everything was summarized at one go when a PhD holder sold himself for a few bucks in the election. The holy religious book and the constitution of India have lots of similarities. Both the preacher and the lawyer interpret according to their interests and clients. Both have god and judge to give the final verdict. Let’s see and wait what the god and the judge have stored for all of us in the form of a verdict.
An aspirant