Editor,
The recent developments surrounding the Arunachal Engineering Service Examination (AESE) 2025 have left many aspiring engineers in a state of confusion and frustration. The entire process, from the preliminary exam to the scheduled mains, has been fraught with issues that raise serious questions about the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (APPSC) conduct and commitment to fairness.
The AESE-2025 preliminary exam was held on 27 July, with the results declared just three days later on 30 July. This was followed by the immediate scheduling of the mains exam for 6 and 7 September, leaving candidates with an unacceptably short preparation window. While this in itself was a concern, the real issue emerged with the declaration of the prelims results, which failed to adhere to the APPSC’s own 1:12 ratio as mandated by the APPSC manual.
The examination was for a total of 166 posts, out of which 136 posts were for civil and agricultural engineering. According to the 1:12 ratio, this should have resulted in the shortlisting of approximately 1,632 candidates. The APPSC’s result notification showed a list of 1,224 roll numbers for the 102 posts for civil graduates and 408 roll numbers for the 34 posts for both civil and agricultural engineering graduates. However, a closer look revealed a critical flaw: 362 candidates from the second list were already included in the first list. This meant that, in reality, only 1,270 candidates were shortlisted for 136 posts, depriving 362 deserving candidates of their opportunity to sit for the mains.
In response to this grave injustice, a writ petition was filed by both those who qualified and those who did not. On 3 September, the Gauhati High Court passed an order to allow the petitioners to appear for the mains examination under a zone of consideration. This was followed by a swift, albeit premature, notification from the APPSC on 4 September, rescheduling the mains exam for 28 and 29 September. This new date was set even before the second set of results was declared.
Adding to the confusion, on 9 September, the APPSC filed a review petition, stating that “the commission was of the opinion that candidates who fall within the zone of consideration and possess higher merit than the petitioners also deserve an opportunity to appear in the mains examination.” This was a welcome, though belated, acknowledgment of the flawed initial result. But no one knew who would be under this new result. Finally, on 18 September, following the high court’s order, the second list of results was declared, which included 362 fresh candidates who had been previously deprived. In this list only 22 petitioners could make it as the remaining 27 petitioners did not fall under the zone of consideration.
The declaration of this second list with just nine days left for the mains exam is a monumental injustice. For the 362 candidates, the sudden opportunity is a mixed blessing. The lack of a clear cutoff mark in the first place meant that these candidates were left in the dark, unable to assess their chances of making it to the second list. A mere nine-day window for intensive preparation for a crucial mains examination is simply not enough.
Not everyone lives in Itanagar; some are either in Delhi preparing for PSCS, or in remote villages and require time for managing logistics and accommodation. Can a candidate manage all of this in a nine-day window or prepare for an exam?
Furthermore, this protracted legal battle and the subsequent rescheduling have also created immense mental harassment for the candidates on the first list. The uncertainty and the knowledge of ongoing legal cases have made it impossible for them to prepare with a clear mind. No one wants to sit for an exam that might face further legal challenges down the line.
This entire episode could have been avoided. The APPSC should have initially heard the candidates’ grievances and declared a single, correct set of results, maintaining the 1:12 ratio. Furthermore, a normal preparation period, similar to what is provided by other public service commissions, should have been given to all candidates.
The APPSC now has an opportunity to rectify its mistakes and restore the faith of aspiring engineers in its process. We urge the commission to postpone the mains examination once more, giving all candidates, especially the newly added 362, adequate time to prepare. The APPSC must declare a final, definitive date for the mains exam, giving all candidates a fair chance to prepare and compete. A single, well-conducted examination is in the best interest of all parties involved and is the only way forward to ensure a fair and transparent selection process.
1st list qualified candidate