ITANAGAR, 30 Dec: A group of 12 aggrieved APPSCCE-2024 candidates has alleged discrepancies in the recently declared preliminary examination results and also expressed doubt over the process of conducting the examination.
In a signed complaint letter to the chairman and the secretary of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), they said that, as per the commission’s advertisement, “the number of candidates to be admitted to the mains examination will be about 12 times the number of advertised posts or as decided by the commission.”
They claimed that the recently declared results didn’t comply with the 1:12 ratio. They said that, since the total number of vacancies/posts is 140 and the number of candidates who appeared in the examination was 17,009, the total number of the selected candidates should have been 1,680. However, only 1,658 candidates were selected.
They also sought a confirmation from the commission regarding the number of candidates who qualified the qualifying paper (CSAT or Paper-II).
“There is a glaring notion that only 1,658 candidates out of the total appearing candidates have qualified in the qualifying paper (CSAT or Paper-II) and that is why only 1,658 have been short-listed in the APPSCCE (preliminary) result 2024.
“However, after cross-verifying the official answer keys published through the official website of the APPSC, it is found that there are more than 1,658 candidates who qualified for the qualifying paper(CSAT or Paper-II),” the letter read.
The aggrieved candidates also appealed to the commission to provide the set cut-off mark for general studies (Paper-I) in the preliminary examination, 2024.
“There is an overwhelming confusion regarding the cut-off mark in the general studies (Paper-I), where many candidates who were confident of getting selected in the APPSCCE (Preliminary), 2024 have been excluded from the short-listed result.
“If the qualification in the qualifying paper (CSAT or Paper-II) was not the main point of contention, then the cut-off mark in the general studies (Paper-I) becomes the deciding factor,” the letter read.
They requested the commission to “clarify on the answer keys which were successfully challenged, whether the marks were awarded to the respective candidates, or the candidates who attempted the respective questions or all the appearing candidates.”
They further urged the commission to “explain the reason for considering the questions with multiple answers, as the majority of the candidates might have avoided the respective question for the same reason despite knowing the correct answer/answers.”
The aggrieved candidates requested the commission to “immediately take cognisance of the concerns and initiate necessary measures at the earliest by constituting a grievance redressal cell as provided under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2024 by adding the other 22 qualified candidates in the short-listed result.”
