By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Aug 2: In a decision that is likely to court further controversy, the under-fire Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) on Friday made it clear that they will not display the marks secured by the candidates who have qualified in the Meghalaya Civil Service (Preliminary) examination.
MPSC secretary, Ashish Mankin Sangma issued a public notice which states: “This is for general information of all candidates that proposal for public disclosure of marks for the Meghalaya Civil Service (Preliminary) examination has been strongly objected to by aggrieved candidates due to potential infringement of their Right to Privacy which is their Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The public notice further stated that the public disclosure of examination marks without the explicit consent of the candidates is not only unnecessary but also disproportionate.
“This may subject the candidates to unwarranted scrutiny and potential prejudice, which might have detrimental effect on their personal and professional lives. Furthermore, it contravenes the principle of individual dignity,” Sangma said.
Stating that the marks will not be displayed in the public domain, the MPSC secretary, however, said that the commission is enabling a process through which candidates can view their own marks through an OTP-based system.
The MPSC announcement comes hours after six candidates – M Syiemiong, R Rynjah, M Momin, A Marak, S Dkhar and M Marak – wrote to the MPSC Chairman, objecting to the proposal to make the marks of the candidates public, stating that it would be infringement of their Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Earlier, the KSU had demanded that the MPSC should make public the marks of the 580 candidates who were in the original list as well as those of the 62 additional candidates.
The union had also questioned the selection of 62 additional candidates after reassessment of the OMR answer sheets of the preliminary examinations held in November last year.
The KSU had alleged that the reassessment was done with a malafide intention to accommodate candidates “who are high profile”.