‘Anomalies in LDA results’

Dimapur, March 13 (MExN): Anomalies have been found out in the results of the common recruitment examination for the posts of LDA-cum-computer assistants declared by the Personnel &Administrative Reforms (P&AR) Department on March 6.
In an open letter to the P&AR Department issued by an aspiring candidate, one Jendi Jacob stated that anomalies, if any, in other departments/directorate have not been found out yet, however, certain discrepancies have been found in the result of the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts.
Pointing out the errors, the candidate said that three candidates - Roll no: 6020, 5560 and 4083, who did not qualify in the written examination result (open/unreserved category) under the Directorate of Treasuries & Accounts declared on October 23, 2010 have been declared as selected under the same Directorate in the result that was published on March 6, 2011. “...roll no. 6020 and 5560 were qualified in written exam under separate Directorates, the candidate with roll no 4083 ...
...(reserved category; physically handicapped) did not qualify in the written exam as per result declared against Reserved Quota on November 5, 2010. Roll no. 4083 neither was qualified in written against Open/Unreserved Vacancies. There was no other separate result declared or interview calling notice against Reserved Quota nor was there any subsequent addendum/notification/clarification.”
Owing to which the candidate has demanded the authority in concern to clarify the “case of Roll no. 4083 who neither cleared the written exam nor called for interview” against both Open/Unreserved Vacancies and Reserved Quota.
Concerning the clubbed “oral interview” for those candidates who qualified in written exam under the Directorate of Treasuries & Accounts and the Directorate of Nagaland State Lotteries, the candidate in the note said that only 95 candidates qualified for the written examination in the Directorate of Treasuries & Accounts and eight candidates qualified under the Directorate of Nagaland State Lotteries.
However, 108 candidates were called for ‘oral interview,’ the notification for which was published on October 30, 2011.
“If the two Directorates were clubbed together then only 103 (95+8) candidates should have been called for interview but 5 (five) more candidates who qualified in written under various Directorates were called for interview along with those qualified under the two Directorates thus adding up the number to 108 candidates. The five candidates bearing the roll nos: 6053 qualified in written under the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Kohima; 5560 Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Kohima; 3477 Directorate of Information & Public Relations, Kohima; 3496 Office of DGP Kohima; and 6020 Directorate of Soil & Water Conservation, Kohima. Out of these five candidates, two candidates bearing roll nos. 6020 and 5560 were selected for the post under the Directorate of Treasuries & Accounts,” the note stated.
Expressing discontentment, the candidate stated that the inclusion of five more candidates from various Directorates for common interview along with the two Directorates is “most unfair and an injustice to those candidates who qualified under the two Directorates”. It hugely reduced their chances to be selected for the job. In turn, there was reduced competition for the rest of the other candidates selected under the five Directorates as one candidate each was absent in the interviews for the five Directorates.
“This clearly reveals that the policy was executed with some hidden agenda and to benefit few people. The authority must come out clean and clear on this issue. Such policy would lead to confusion and mistrust upon the government. Candidates selected for written examination in one Directorate and then called for interview in another Directorate could lead to the candidates missing out the interview calling notices, as they will only be on the lookout for the advertisement under the name of the particular Directorate in which they qualified for written examination. Such confusing policies can be avoided in the future,” the note added.
Moreover, those who qualified against Open/Unreserved Vacancies in written were specifically categorized under various Directorates, those who qualified against Reserved Quota were not categorized under various Directorates.
“Mostly important of all, if there were any corrigendum/addendum/clarification with regard to the LDA-cum-computer assistant exam, the concerned authority should have mentioned the same in the final result that was declared on March 6, 2011. However, the P&AR Department mentioned only the date of vacancies, which was advertised in the local dailies on September 10, 2010 and subsequent addendum advertisement (pertaining only to previously advertised vacancies and not any correction) on September 25, 2010,” the candidate retorted.
The candidate has demanded clarification from the authority in concern as to why Roll no 4083 was selected for the post even though the candidate did not qualify in written exam both against Open/Unreserved Vacancies and Reserved Quota. “It may be mentioned that Roll no. 4417 who also fell under the Physically Handicapped category same as Roll no. 4083 had cleared the written examination, called for interview and the roll no. was published in all result notifications. But Roll no. 4083 was not found in any of the written exam or oral interview notifications but found only in the selected list.”
Stating that irrespective of whether a candidate belongs to the “Open Category or Reserved Category”, his or her selection in the written exam and calling for oral interview must be declared by way of public notification in the local dailies. Such notifications were not issued in the case of roll no. 4083 and the candidate was declared selected in the final result which is “highly questionable”.
Moreover, clarification has been demanded as to why the five candidates from other Directorates were picked and included to be interviewed under the Directorates of Treasuries & Accounts and State Lotteries. “Detailed explanation in this regard is also expected to be furnished from the authorities. Such picking of candidates and accommodating them in other Directorates has ultimately lessened the chances of other candidates to be selected and also created confusion to the calculated ratio. The authorities must properly explain on how the ratio was calculated against the number of vacancies,”  
The candidate also declared in the note: “This write up is not targeted against any individual either selected or not selected but a quest to know and get clarified with regard to the discrepancies detected in the result. I as an aspiring candidate for competitive exams strongly feel that everyone has to right to get their doubts clarified.”