Editor,
In recent days, aspirants who sat for the Junior Engineering Common Recruitment Exam 2025 have been reeling from an unexpected and unwelcome shock: the high cost attached to challenging wrong answers in the exam’s provisional answer key. While the right to raise objections to perceived errors should strengthen confidence in fair evaluation, the Rs 500 fee per challenge imposed on candidates – especially for those already under financial and emotional stress – feels like a penalty rather than a safeguard of justice.
For many aspirants preparing for government job exams like SSC Junior Engineer (JE) and UPSC Engineering Services Examination (ESE), the answer key challenge process is a crucial opportunity to point out mistakes that can affect scores and final merit. Yet the price of that opportunity matters just as much as the right itself.
Take the case of the SSC JE 2025 exam. The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) – responsible for recruiting junior engineers – allows candidates to raise objections against the tentative answer keys by paying a fee of Rs 50 per question challenged online during the objection window. This is a relatively modest amount compared with the controversial Rs 500 now being levied in the Junior Engineering Common Recruitment Exam case. The SSC’s current policy applies this Rs 50 fee per question, with no refund promised, even if the objection is accepted (though a refund mechanism is reportedly under development).
What this comparison highlights is stark: in the Junior Engineering Common Recruitment Exam, candidates are being asked to pay 10 times more per challenge than in the SSC JE process, and far more than in any transparent challenge mechanism envisioned for UPSC exams like ESE or even the civil services prelims. A Rs 500 challenge fee is not just high – it risks erecting a financial barrier to fairness itself.
Consider the implications. A candidate who identifies what they believe is a genuine error in the answer key – one potentially affecting their overall rank – must now part with Rs 500 every time they protest. If multiple questions seem problematic, this can quickly escalate into thousands of rupees in fees, on top of exam application fees, travel costs, study materials, and months of preparation. These costs disproportionately affect aspirants from economically weaker backgrounds, compounding the meritocratic aspirations that competitive exams are supposed to uphold.
By contrast, the SSC’s approach – charging Rs 50 per question with a promised refund mechanism for successful challenges – seeks, at least in word, to balance the need to deter frivolous objections with fairness to candidates. The system is not yet perfect, but it is far more considerate of candidates’ financial constraints than a static Rs 500 charge with unclear refund terms.
A fair recruitment system must go beyond simply announcing scores and vacancies. It must ensure that candidates can hold evaluators accountable without being penalised for doing so. Charging Rs 500 per objection for a recruitment exam, without clear, fair refund mechanisms and transparency, undermines this principle. It turns a mechanism of justice into a revenue stream – one that weighs heaviest on those who can least afford it.
If our examination bodies truly believe in fairness and equal opportunity, they must revisit these challenge fees urgently. A right to challenge should not be qualified by a price tag so steep that only the wealthy can afford to question the system. In a country that values merit over means, it is time to ensure that accountability is not a luxury but a guaranteed, accessible part of every competitive exam.
JE aspirant