Editor,

A competitive examination can command public trust only when the same rules are applied equally to every candidate.

The APPSC TGT physics examination held on 12 July at the old APPSC building has raised concerns among candidates who witnessed an incident involving the submission of an OMR answer sheet.

According to candidates present at the centre, when the prescribed examination time ended, candidates were instructed to stop writing and submit their OMR sheets. A reminder or warning had reportedly also been given.

Most candidates complied. However, one candidate allegedly retained the OMR sheet for several minutes - reportedly around 4 to 7 minutes - despite repeated requests from the invigilator to submit it. An argument reportedly followed, after which the examination superintendent was called. The OMR was eventually submitted.

Other candidates had already handed in their papers and were reportedly required to remain seated while the matter was being resolved. The other candidate present understood that the candidate was not availing any PwD-related accommodation. Some candidates questioned why an OMR sheet could be accepted after the prescribed examination time.

This article does not seek to identify or accuse the candidate. The candidate's name and roll number are not known. Nor does the incident, by itself, establish malpractice.

The question is one of procedure and equal treatment.

If any additional time or special accommodation was officially authorised under the applicable examination rules, the APPSC can clarify that. The relevant issue is whether the candidate was permitted to retain or work on the OMR after the examination had officially ended, and under what rule or authority.

The document verification process was conducted recently, and candidates reportedly saw the same candidate there. This, however, does not establish any wrongdoing.

The APPSC should clarify:

# Was the OMR submitted after the officially prescribed examination time?

# If so, was the late submission permitted under the applicable rules?

# Was the incident recorded in the centre's official report?

# Was the candidate permitted any additional time to mark or modify answers?

# Was the OMR subsequently treated exactly like those of other candidates?

# Was CCTV recording available at the examination centre, and if so, was the relevant footage preserved or reviewed?

These are not questions aimed at an individual. They concern the integrity and consistency of the examination process.

If the action was fully within the rules, an official clarification would immediately remove the doubt. If there was a procedural deviation, candidates deserve to know whether it could have affected the fairness of the examination.

Recruitment examinations determine the careers of thousands of aspirants. If even a one-minute delay can result in a candidate being denied entry, candidates naturally expect the prescribed time limit at the end of the examination to be enforced with the same consistency.

The expectation from APPSC is therefore simple: One examination. One set of rules. Equal treatment for every candidate.

A transparent clarification would not weaken the commission. On the contrary, it would strengthen public confidence in the examination process and reassure every candidate who appeared for the examination.

Anonymous