Editor,
Through your esteemed daily, I would like to draw the attention of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
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 10 times the number of available posts. Based on this rule, the expected shortlisting figures are:
# Civil: Total post – 136; expected shortlist (x10) – 1,360
# Electrical: Total post – 16; expected shortlist – 160
# Mechanical: Total post – 8; expected shortlist – 80
# Electronics/computer/telecom: Total post – 3; expected shortlist – 30
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 are altogether 414 candidates for departments like HP, WRD, and RWD, of which 364 candidates are taken from the initial pool of 1,205, leaving 841 candidates excluded from consideration for HP, WRD, and RWD.
This exclusion raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of the process.
What criteria were used to exclude 841 candidates from eligibility for HP, WRD, and RWD? The lack of clarity suggests an arbitrary approach that undermines the principles of merit-based selection.
Why were 364 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?
Is the commission maintaining impartiality and integrity? The recruitment process must be free from bias, favouritism, or any form of manipulation.
Is there a resurgence of the ‘cash-for-job’ scandal that marred the AE recruitment in 2021-2022? The public deserves assurance that such malpractices are not 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.
# sults 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.
Let merit prevail. Let justice be done.
A concerned citizen