Srinagar, June 04 (KINS): A section of candidates who appeared in the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) Preliminary Examination for the posts of Prosecuting Officer on May 31 has sought a fresh examination of the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) paper, alleging that it did not conform to the prescribed syllabus and standard notified by the Commission.
The preliminary examination consisted of two objective-type papers based on Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) — Paper-I (Law) and Paper-II (CSAT) — both conducted on the same day.
A delegation of aggrieved candidates claimed that while the Law paper was largely in line with the prescribed syllabus and expected standard, the CSAT paper was unusually difficult and included questions that were allegedly beyond the Class 10 level specified by the JKPSC.
According to the candidates, the CSAT paper, despite being qualifying in nature, has emerged as the primary hurdle for a significant number of aspirants.
“Under the notified examination scheme, candidates are required to secure a minimum of 66 marks in Paper-II to qualify. However, after reviewing the provisional answer key issued by the JKPSC, many candidates found themselves falling short of the qualifying benchmark by a narrow margin despite performing well in the Law paper,” a member of the delegation said.
The aspirants argued that the qualifying paper was intended to assess basic aptitude, reasoning and comprehension skills, and not to eliminate candidates who have demonstrated strong proficiency in law, the core subject of the examination.
They maintained that several candidates who expect to secure competitive scores in Paper-I now face disqualification solely because they may be unable to achieve the minimum qualifying marks in the CSAT paper.
The candidates have submitted a representation to the JKPSC seeking a review of the matter and demanding that Paper-II be conducted afresh. They contended that the level of the CSAT paper was beyond the notified syllabus and inconsistent with previous examination trends.
The aspirants further alleged that an imbalance was created between the two papers, with the Law paper remaining within the prescribed framework while the qualifying CSAT paper exceeded the expected standard.
“Many serious and well-prepared aspirants are likely to be screened out not because of their performance in law, but because of a qualifying paper that, in our view, went beyond the prescribed level,” another candidate said.
The aggrieved candidates have also appealed to political leaders, public representatives and civil society organisations to take up the matter with the authorities and ensure that their concerns are addressed.
Demanding what they termed a fair and equitable opportunity, the candidates said a re-examination of Paper-II would serve the interests of justice and fairness and prevent deserving candidates from being denied consideration due to a qualifying paper they believe exceeded the prescribed standard.
The JKPSC had not issued any official response to the allegations or the demand for a re-examination at the time of filing this report.
Meanwhile, the issue continues to generate discussion among aspirants, many of whom fear that the outcome of the qualifying CSAT paper could ultimately determine their eligibility despite the competitive assessment being primarily based on performance in the Law paper.(KINS)
