Reassessment of OMR answer sheets, shortlisting of 62 extra candidates draw severe criticism
TURA/SHILLONG, July 25: The decision of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission to reassess the OMR answer sheets and declare a list of an additional 62 candidates as successful has stirred a hornet’s nest with the Trinamool Congress in Garo Hills terming the move as one that reeks of corruption and nepotism and a blatant and illegal act to benefit a few.
“The MPSC’s decision to reassess OMR answer sheets has sparked widespread controversy. As a concerned citizen, I strongly condemn this unprecedented move, which threatens to undermine the integrity of our examination processes,” TMC youth leader Richard Marak said on Thursday, while reacting to the fresh notification.
“How can OMR sheets, once considered tamper-proof, be reassessed after seven months? What criteria were used to select candidates for reassessment, and were they adhered to? Who benefits from this move? And most importantly, who ordered this reassessment? These questions demand immediate answers,” Marak added.
According to Marak, allegations of nepotism and favouritism were rife, with claims that Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma’s relatives are among those included on the new list. He added that if the claims are true, it constitutes a clear case of abuse of power and manipulation of the system.
“This reassessment represents a classic case of ‘moving the goalposts’ and ‘changing the rules of the game’. It is unacceptable and smacks of desperation. The MPSC must restore transparency and accountability in the examination process,” Marak demanded.
In addition, Marak demanded a comprehensive explanation of how the reassessment was carried out, including any deviations from established guidelines and the reasons for those deviations, assurance that all criteria and procedures were properly followed, or a detailed account of any deviations that occurred, clear identification of those responsible for any breaches of protocol, along with appropriate actions taken against them, transparency regarding who authorised and directed the reassessment to ensure no undue influence was involved, the formation of an independent review panel to oversee the reassessment process and an improvement and enforcement of internal procedures and guidelines to ensure fairness and to prevent similar issues in the future.