Editor,
I wish to highlight the plight of many aspirants affected by the Arunachal Engineering Services Examination (AESE-2025).
These candidates were first rejected due to the flawed shortlisting process. They were subjected to premature segregation, arbitrary exclusion, and the denial of their rightful chance. They had to face deep dejection, watching others move ahead while their own future remained in doubt. Only after intervention by the Gauhati High Court and subsequent assurances from the commission were they finally included in the revised results.
But instead of relief, a fresh problem now confronts them. While those originally shortlisted on 30 July have had nearly two months to prepare for the mains, the newly added candidates are left with less than three weeks before the exams scheduled for 28-29 September. This unequal preparation time places them at a severe disadvantage. Justice, it is often said, must not only be done but must also be seen to be done – and in this case, fairness is still compromised.
It is important to underline why this situation is unjust. First, the psychological impact of rejection cannot be underestimated. Once excluded from the first shortlist, candidates were officially told they were not eligible for the mains. To expect them to continue preparing as if nothing happened is deeply unrealistic, as many faced emotional dejection, financial stress, and a loss of motivation.
Second, the question of practical feasibility arises. Preparation for such competitive exams requires structured and sustained effort. While a handful may have continued just in case, the majority naturally shifted focus to other examinations, jobs, or are simply coping with the shock of rejection. Only weeks later, after the high court intervened, did inclusion even become a possibility. Third, from a legal perspective, service jurisprudence makes it clear that fairness is not merely about inclusion but about equal opportunity to compete. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that candidates cannot be punished for the mistakes of the recruiting authority (K Manjusree v State of AP, 2008). The onus lies on the commission to create a level playing field, not on candidates to overcome systemic injustice by sheer willpower.
Finally, there is the ethical consideration. To say that they should have kept preparing unfairly shifts the blame from the commission to the victims. This is ethically unacceptable. Once excluded, these candidates deserve not just inclusion but also equitable preparation time.
The situation is further exacerbated by the commission’s apparent tendency to adopt a subtle divide and rule approach between candidates included in the first shortlist and those who were excluded. By delaying corrective measures and allowing one group the advantage of additional preparation time while the other is compelled to catch up under pressure, the APPSC has intensified disparities among aspirants who ought to have competed on an equal footing. Rather than fostering a fair and transparent system, the commission’s actions have generated mistrust, frustration, and unnecessary discord within the student community.
Moreover, candidates must not allow fear of potential reprisal or targeting by the commission to prevent them from asserting their rights. While such concerns are understandable, the integrity of the selection process and the principles of fairness demand that aspirants actively pursue both administrative and legal remedies. Proactive engagement with the commission, alongside simultaneous recourse through the courts, is essential to safeguard their rights, ensure accountability, and guarantee that systemic errors are corrected fairly and transparently.
At this stage, the AAPSU should actively intervene, as the situation has become clear and the grounds for rectification are evident. Their involvement is crucial to ensure that the candidates’ legitimate rights are upheld, systemic errors are addressed, and the selection process is restored to a fair and transparent standard.
Likha Tani