message from raghupathy sir regarding queries related to cgl 13 re exam results

Kannan Raghupathy

Since the declaration of Tier I reexam result of CGLE 2013 I have been online for a few hours everyday for clarifying issues raised by the candidates, as I used to do when I was the Chairman. It shows the lack of any meaningful arrangement in place in SSC to listen to the grievances of candidates. The Query system has not served any meaningful purpose.

The issues raised so far are:
1. Many candidates who are confident that they had written and coded the name, roll no, Test Form No and Test Form No correctly and claim to have done well in the exam do not find their names in List I and II. I have been advising them to wait for placement of Zero mark list or obtain the copy of the OMR sheet under RTI. Of course, they can represent too, but the record of SSC looking into representations has been dismal in the past one year.
2. Candidates claim that a large number of candidates included in List I for ‘all’ posts also find their names in List II of ‘additional’ candidates. SSC should look into this and issue a corrigendum, if necessary.
3. Many UR candidates are agitated about the very large number of OBC candidates selected for Tier II. If SSC had placed the number of OBC candidates meeting the UR cut-off, the confusion would not have arisen.
4. Someone has done a preliminary analysis and found that out of the top 15 cand of the cancelled exam last year 9 either did not qualify this time or did not attend Tier I reexam. It is an interesting analysis. SSC can do an analysis of performance of the top 2000 or so of the last year’s cancelled examination and their performance this time to assess the extent of fraud committed in last year’s cancelled examination.
Someone told me last month that he/she was informed by an officer of SSC that I am the most hated person among the present SSC officials now! I have no problem with it. Even when I was in service, I used to tell them that I was an officer first and foremost and a gentleman only after that. I have a responsibility, as a responsible citizen who has deep insight into the working of the SSC, to make suggestions to SSC and I do it, in the absence of any other opportunity, openly through a public forum like FB. If they do not take it in the proper spirit, so be it. I love to be hated!
NWR’s official FB page spoke about fresh options for posts at the time of ‘online document verification’. If there is such a policy decision which changes the provisions in the notice- in this case the ‘policy’ is welcomed by 100s of candidates- SSC should place it formally on their website instead of maintaining needless secrecy which is taken by the candidates as lack of transparency, which in my view is justifiable. If there is a policy decision that State options will not be considered in the ‘candidate friendly’ results, it should also be place don the website, as it is a variation from the Terms of the Notice of the Examination.

SSC’s website says that there is an ‘Expert Group’ constituted for making recommendations on restructuring the examinations. The public have a right to know who the ‘Experts’ are. It is also expected that there will be some public consultation on the recommendations before the Government takes decision on them. Otherwise, the SSC will go the UPSC way.

Leave a Reply