Editor,

Apropos the letter ‘The silent flaw in APPSCCE’, dated 29 May, 2026, it has rightly and aptly put the grievances of all the candidates with ‘low scoring’ optional.

Ideally, candidates from different academic backgrounds and optional should compete on an equal footing. Yet recent examination trends suggest that some optional subjects have yielded significantly higher marks than others.

This disparity cannot simply be dismissed as a reflection of candidates’ competence. Every optional subject attracts hardworking and capable aspirants. The problem arises when evaluation standards differ sharply from one subject to another. In some subjects, examiners appear more liberal in awarding marks, while in others, equally deserving answers are assessed more conservatively.

Such inconsistencies create a situation where the choice of optional subject becomes more important than the actual quality of preparation. A candidate’s future should never hinge on whether they selected a ‘high-scoring’ subject, rather than on how well they performed.

This is precisely why moderation and scaling mechanisms exist in many major competitive examinations. Institutions like the UPSC and several state public service commissions have long recognised that optional subjects assessed by different examiners inevitably produce variations in marking patterns. Statistical moderation helps neutralise these differences and ensures that no candidate gains or loses unfairly because of examiner subjectivity. This can be clearly assessed from the results where toppers with varied optional with parity in optional marks get selected every year.

With the mains examination still months away, the commission has sufficient time to introduce corrective measures. A fair moderation policy, combined with rigorous examiner standardisation, would strengthen the integrity of the APPSCCE and reassure candidates that merit alone determines success.

A truly competitive examination must reward talent consistently across all subjects. Anything less risks turning an examination of merit into an examination of luck.

An aspirant