The decision taken by NPSC is no better than the village panchayat. The former decide on something that is immediate, short cut, insincere without future impact on our society, while the later decide on which is acceptable for long term perspective. The unilateral decision of NPSC was inequity and injustice which is reasonably evidence from criticism in every examination. Not to mention that, their mindset was incomparable and unmatchable to the village panchayat.
The prelim result which was declared on September 18 was another fresh illogical decision taken by the commission. The result, inter alia, was unfair and loophole, not withstanding many erroneous questions, which the commission did not disclose. With the introduction of negative marking, one mark becomes a deciding factor. Unfortunately the commission did not take a serious note. Unlike previous exams, the ratio between the total number of vacancies and the total number of qualified candidates in 2011 prelim was shocking and improper. Not to mention that, in UPSC, the number of candidates admitted to the main exam was about 12 to 13 times or 1 post is equal to 12 to 13 candidates in every prelim exam.
Comparing far and near, NPSC is far behind justice, as the number of aspiring candidates goes on increasing year after year. In the previous prelim result, the ratio was only 1:8 approximately. But again to our surprise the ratio of the recent prelim result was reduced, not even 50 percent of the UPSC, even though the number of vacancies announced by the commission was double digit, as compared to previous exam.
Total no. of vacancies announced by the NPSC was 133 posts. Total no. of qualified candidates was 814 only. Ratio (vacancies vis--vis candidates) is 1:6 approximately.
Further, there are many candidates who are facing interview which is going on. Hopefully many of them get through. Thus, if we calculate by deducting some of them (said 64 posts for the ongoing interview) 814-64=750, then the ratio will be 1:5 or one post per five candidates approximately. If it is so, then the commission has no need for conducting mains exam but call for direct interview only, by saving time and burdens as the commission dream and desire for.
It is logically incorrect by assuming that toping in the prelim does not necessarily mean s/he will be inducting into EAC, while securing lowest mark does not mean s/he will not crack NPSC, as prelim is only qualifying nature and does not added for final ranking. The commission needs to critique and analyse thoroughly as serious candidates will no longer tolerate against unfair and injustice vis-a vis post, if any.
The prelim result which was declared on September 18 was another fresh illogical decision taken by the commission. The result, inter alia, was unfair and loophole, not withstanding many erroneous questions, which the commission did not disclose. With the introduction of negative marking, one mark becomes a deciding factor. Unfortunately the commission did not take a serious note. Unlike previous exams, the ratio between the total number of vacancies and the total number of qualified candidates in 2011 prelim was shocking and improper. Not to mention that, in UPSC, the number of candidates admitted to the main exam was about 12 to 13 times or 1 post is equal to 12 to 13 candidates in every prelim exam.
Comparing far and near, NPSC is far behind justice, as the number of aspiring candidates goes on increasing year after year. In the previous prelim result, the ratio was only 1:8 approximately. But again to our surprise the ratio of the recent prelim result was reduced, not even 50 percent of the UPSC, even though the number of vacancies announced by the commission was double digit, as compared to previous exam.
Total no. of vacancies announced by the NPSC was 133 posts. Total no. of qualified candidates was 814 only. Ratio (vacancies vis--vis candidates) is 1:6 approximately.
Further, there are many candidates who are facing interview which is going on. Hopefully many of them get through. Thus, if we calculate by deducting some of them (said 64 posts for the ongoing interview) 814-64=750, then the ratio will be 1:5 or one post per five candidates approximately. If it is so, then the commission has no need for conducting mains exam but call for direct interview only, by saving time and burdens as the commission dream and desire for.
It is logically incorrect by assuming that toping in the prelim does not necessarily mean s/he will be inducting into EAC, while securing lowest mark does not mean s/he will not crack NPSC, as prelim is only qualifying nature and does not added for final ranking. The commission needs to critique and analyse thoroughly as serious candidates will no longer tolerate against unfair and injustice vis-a vis post, if any.
Chanchi Kithan, Kohima
