DIMAPUR, JULYL 4 (MExN): The Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) has issued a clarification over the confusion of extra roll numbers which appeared in the written examination result of the recently declared Combined Technical Services Examination 2016 (CTSE).
On July 4, the Graduate Engineers Association (GEEAN), Association of Mechanical Engineers Nagaland (AMEN), Forestry Graduate Association of Nagaland FGAN), Unemployed Civil Engineers Association of Nagaland (UCEAN), Agriculture Engineers Graduate Association of Nagaland (AEGAN), All Nagaland Unemployed Veterinary Doctors Association (ANUVDA) and Electronics & Communication Engineers Association Nagaland (ECEAN) had also sought clarification over the issue.
Secretary, NPSC Khrupi Sothu in a press statement on Tuesday said all the examinations conducted by the Commission are based on “The Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil & other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008, which it stated, was duly notified in the Nagaland Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 68, Friday, February 29, 2008.”
Elaborating on the regulations, the NPSC Secretary pointed out that Rule No. 18 (1) (iii) states “Selection by interview only will be resorted to in the following cases: - (iii) When the number of the applicants for a particular category of post is 4+ x, or less where x is the number of vacancies advertised.”
Further, the Rule No. 18 (2) clearly specify how to short-list candidates in such an eventuality, Rule 18 (3) provides the formula to calculate the academic weightage and Rule 18 (4) provides “The marks secured by each candidate for academic qualification as calculated under Rule 18 (3) shall be added to the interview mark for preparation of merit list.”
It stated that the Commission received requisition for 4 (four) posts from the Department of Printing & Stationary duly specifying the requisite educational qualifications etc. for the posts. However, after the closing date for uploading applications, the Commission found that only 6 (six) candidates were found eligible for the said 4 posts and accordingly these 6 (six) candidates were selected for “interview only” under Rules 18 (1) (iii) of the NPSC (Civil & other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008.
These six candidates were allotted roll no. etc. however, as they were not to appear written examination, their roll numbers were not indicated in the various examination centres, the NPSC stated.
On the request for publication of the answer keys by the associations, the Commission maintained that except for the NCS, NPS, NSS & Allied Services Preliminary Examination where the preliminary mark is not added to written and oral marks for final determination of result, the Commission do not publish answer keys for any other examination.
“If the Commission allows the publication of answer keys, the candidates will be able to fairly assess their individual marks and determine their position in the written result which may lead to lobbying and ultimately the possibility of corruption comes in,” it apprehended.
In connection to the candidate bearing roll no- 7099, the Commission said it rejected some candidates on the ground that they did not fill up their applications correctly. However, 3 (three) candidates including the one bearing the aforesaid roll no challenged their rejection in the High Court through W.P. (c) 13(K) 2017 wherein the High Court directed the NPSC to allow the petitioners to sit in the CTSE.
It explained that the order of the High Court was received on February 24 and with the written examination scheduled on February 25, the Commission had to immediately issue their roll no and accordingly allowed them to appear the examination as directed.
While stating the above, the Commission has appealed to all concerned to first get the necessary clarifications from the Commission “rather than seeking clarification through social media or print media as the same creates further confusion and mistrust among all the stakeholders rather than clarifying the matter.”
