Editor,
The recently announced notification for engineering aspirants under the APPSC has raised a pressing concern – one that directly affects the future of civil engineering and agricultural engineering candidates.
The commission has earmarked a total of 34 seats for both streams combined. However, the method of preparing the final merit list is based solely on the marks secured in their respective papers.
At first glance, this may appear fair. But a deeper look reveals a structural disparity. Civil engineering and agricultural engineering aspirants are not writing the same paper. Naturally, the difficulty level, scope, and evaluation standards of the two subjects vary. Without a scientific system of normalization – like the one used in GATE or SSC (where scores are statistically adjusted across different papers) – students who are allotted the tougher paper stand at an unfair disadvantage.
The crux of the matter is simple: merit cannot be compared across two fundamentally different examinations without an equalizing mechanism. Yet, the APPSC has no fixed formula for normalization, leaving the fairness of the process open to question.
To resolve this issue, two possible approaches emerge. First, the commission could divide the 34 seats in proportion to the number of applicants from each branch. This would ensure that representation reflects interest and participation at the entry level. Second – and more practical at this stage – the commission should divide the seats according to the number of candidates who have actually qualified for the mains examination from each stream.
Since the preliminary results are already out, the exact number of candidates appearing for the mains is known. By adopting this method, the current issue of segregation, the backlash among students, and the ongoing court cases can be easily resolved. This approach is simple, transparent, and immediately implementable, while also restoring fairness and confidence in the process.
Engineering aspirants dedicate years of effort and resources to prepare for such examinations. The least they deserve is a level playing field. If the system does not adapt, it risks eroding the trust of students and parents alike. The commission must act swiftly – either by adopting normalization formulas in the long term or by restructuring seat allocation in the immediate term – to safeguard fairness and credibility.
An aspirant