A fresh storm has erupted over the Haryana Public Service Commission’s (HPSC) Assistant Professor (English) recruitment after only 151 candidates qualified for 613 vacancies, prompting widespread demands for re-evaluation and triggering protests in Panchkula.
On Wednesday, dozens of aspirants gathered outside the HPSC office, staging a peaceful demonstration by lying on the ground with folded hands — a symbolic appeal for fairness and transparency.
Shortlisting Far Below Expected Ratio
According to the recruitment notification, HPSC was to shortlist candidates at a 2:1 ratio, meaning 1,226 candidates should have advanced to the next stage. Instead, the Commission’s list features barely one-eighth of that number, raising serious questions over the evaluation process.
More than 2,400 candidates had appeared for the descriptive Stage-2 exam. Many say they wrote well-structured, academically rigorous responses, yet only a fraction managed to secure the minimum qualifying score of 35%.
Category-Wise Results Raise Alarms
Recruitment activist Shweta Dhull called the outcome “deeply unsettling” and symptomatic of serious procedural flaws. She urged HPSC to have the answer sheets re-evaluated by experts from a central university to restore credibility.
The category-wise breakdown reveals startling gaps:
- General Category: 136 selected for 312 posts
- Deprived SC: 1 selected for 60 posts
- Other SC: 2 selected for 60 posts
- BC-B: 3 selected for 36 posts
- BC-A: 3 selected for 85 posts
- EWS: 6 selected for 60 posts
“These numbers point to systemic issues rather than candidate competence,” Dhull said, noting that many rejected applicants are NET-qualified, hold PhDs, or have strong academic records.
Aspirants Cite ‘Arbitrariness,’ Question Evaluation
Aggrieved candidates have demanded that HPSC:
- Re-verify the evaluation methodology
- Recheck tabulation and compilation of marks
- Ensure compliance with the notified shortlisting criteria
Many argue that eliminating NET-qualified and PhD-holding candidates through stringent written-exam cutoffs violates constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16, which mandate fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment.
High Screening Scores, but Failed in Final Exam
Frustration grew after numerous high scorers from the screening test failed to qualify in the final written exam.
A PhD holder said, “I scored 77 out of 100 in the screening test, while the general cut-off was 66. My master’s percentage is 62, yet I was declared unsuccessful.”
Another aspirant added, “Candidates who scored in the 90s in the screening exam have not made the list. HPSC must release answer sheets and disclose the evaluation method.”
Several candidates say they plan to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court, citing lack of transparency and non-disclosure of marks for unsuccessful candidates.
HPSC Defends Process
HPSC officials, however, stood by the results. A senior officer said all 15 descriptive questions were evaluated by the same expert to ensure uniformity.
“Our process is transparent and fair. Descriptive answers are an accurate measure of subject knowledge,” the official said.
