The statement by Rajya Sabha MP, WR Kharlukhi that he would resign his seat if his wife who is a member of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) was found to be involved in any manner in the controversies surrounding the Commission in recent times. This clarification comes after the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) met the Governor, C H Vijayashankar a day before, asking for his intervention to bring transparency in the functioning of the Commission.
In August this year the MPSC responding to public demand to make public the marks of the candidates who have qualified in the Preliminary exams, stated that the Commission is under no obligation to display the marks secured by such candidates. MPSC secretary, Ashish Mankin Sangma had issued a public notice stating that 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 as it may subject the candidates to unwarranted scrutiny and potential prejudice, which might have detrimental effect on their personal and professional lives and that it contravenes the principle of individual dignity.
The MPSC then said that it would enable a process through which candidates can view their own marks through an OTP-based system. Out of the several hundred candidates who sat for the Meghalaya Civil Services preliminary examination only six candidates wrote to the Commission objecting to their marks being made public. The question is why only these six candidates should have a problem with marks being made public? Is it because they fear that their marks were not up to scratch? 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 fact that 62 additional candidates were selected after reassessment of the OMR answer sheets of the preliminary examinations held in November 2023 should actually raise many questions and no amount of justification by the MPSC can clear the doubts prevailing in the minds of the candidates who were earlier selected and of those who were not selected. The KSU is correct in alleging that the reassessment was done with a malafide intention to accommodate candidates with political connections.
Never has the MPSC been known to conduct a free and fair examination to the civil services since its inception and this ambiguity has to stop now. It is important that the public demand that an independent judicial enquiry be conducted into the affairs of the MPSC and its functioning. Why in the first place should a Commission meant to conduct exams and select individuals for employment in different levels of the state government have members with political connections? Enough is enough!
