Editor,
A closer look at the Junior Rural Development Officer (JRDO) recruitment reveals several anomalies. Government of Meghalaya often portrays itself as a champion of youth empowerment, investing significant resources in various youth development initiatives. But recent events surrounding the recruitment process for JRDO positions have raised troubling questions: Is this commitment genuine, or merely for show? How much longer must young people be taken for granted? This wave of frustration and disappointment emerged in response to the recent exam conducted by the Community and Rural Development Recruitment Board. To understand the root of this discontent, it is important to examine the context and timeline of the JRDO recruitment process.
Timeline of Key Events:
August 26, 2019: The Department of Community and Rural Development issued a notification for recruitment to 28 Junior Rural Development Officer (JRDO) vacancies.
July 27, 2022: These 28 positions were filled under “3(f)” provisions which is temporary or ad-hoc appointments under Rule 3(f) of the Meghalaya Service Rules following interviews conducted in March 2022.
November 5, 2024: The government approved the creation of the Meghalaya Rural Development Services Recruitment Board (MRDSRB). Shortly after, the board announced recruitment for 35 JRDO vacancies but this time for permanent posts rather than temporary appointments.
March 29, 2025: The preliminary exam, comprising 100 multiple-choice questions (MCQs), was held. April 21, 2025: The answer key was released, revealing a highly unusual pattern: over half of the correct answers were option ‘B
Specifically, 11 questions used ‘B’ as their answer which is an odd distribution that raises questions about the exam’s fairness and design. Normally, MCQ options should be randomized to avoid any such patterns that candidates could exploit.
July 30-August 1, 2025: Interviews were conducted, and the final results released on August 1st showed a startling overlap with the 2022 batch where 25 of the 35 selected candidates were the same individuals appointed under the earlier temporary 3(f) posts.
Why This Matters: Transparency and Fairness in Public Recruitment Such a significant overlap raises legitimate concerns. Was this recruitment process truly competitive and transparent, or was it simply a formality designed to regularize the earlier ad-hoc appointments? If the goal was to ensure fairness and provide fresh opportunities for aspiring youth, how did this come to resemble a predetermined outcome? Recruitment boards like MRDSRB are expected to uphold high standards of impartiality and transparency. The peculiar answer pattern in the preliminary exam and the near-identical final selection undermines confidence in the process. Was the recruitment board merely a rubber stamp, created to legitimize past appointments without genuine competition?
Furthermore, these uncertainties damage the morale of countless young aspirants across Meghalaya who dedicate years preparing for competitive exams, hoping for a level playing field. The state’s poor track record in producing successful candidates in national-level exams like the UPSC only exacerbates these frustrations. How can motivation thrive in an environment where even state-level recruitment is questioned?
A Call for Accountability and Fairness This letter does not seek to assign blame but to raise essential questions and concerns shared by many hopeful candidates. We urge the government to: Ensure complete transparency in recruitment processes. Provide clear explanations regarding unusual patterns in examination papers. Engage independent bodies, such as the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC), to conduct future recruitment to guarantee fairness. Restore the trust and confidence of the youth, who are the backbone of Meghalaya’s future.
If the government is truly “Pro Youth,” it must demonstrate this through actions that are beyond reproach, not just announcements or symbolic initiatives. Fair recruitment processes are fundamental to empowering young people and building a stronger, more equitable Meghalaya.
If Meghalaya truly aims to empower its youth, it must foster recruitment practices that inspire trust rather than suspicion. Only through transparent, equitable exams can we motivate young aspirants, honour their dedication, and secure a brighter future for the state.
Yours etc.,
I Pakyntein,
Via email
Need for Balanced Mobile Phone Policy in Schools
Editor,
Through the columns of your esteemed newspaper, I wish to express my concern regarding the strict ban on mobile phones in many schools, including those in Shillong. In the year 2025, such a policy seems regressive and unfair, especially considering the growing importance of connectivity and safety in a student’s life.
Many students travel long distances to attend school. For them, carrying a mobile phone is not a luxury but a necessity—crucial for location sharing, contacting parents, or dealing with emergencies. Denying them the right to carry a mobile phone after school hours can pose genuine safety risks.
Recently, the Delhi High Court passed a judgment emphasizing that schools should not entirely ban students from carrying mobile phones. Instead, it advised that schools create secure facilities to store phones during class hours and incorporate education on the responsible use of technology. Such a balanced approach respects both discipline and the realities of today’s world.
It is time for educational institutions in Shillong and elsewhere to take note of this progressive judgment. Schools can and should enforce rules on phone usage during school hours, including fines or disciplinary action for misuse. However, an outright ban on carrying mobile phones is not the solution. It ignores the evolving needs of students and fails to reflect the digital age we live in.
In conclusion, school policies must align with the times—focusing on student growth, safety, and responsibility rather than outdated notions of discipline. Denying students access to basic tools of communication after school hours could potentially endanger them and limit their development in a technology-driven world.
Yours etc.,
Roney Lyndem
(Counsellor),
Via email
India’s economy far from dead
Editor,
Apropos of the editorial “Young ‘dead’ economy” (ST, August 4 2025), Donald Trump often uses provocative language to push a narrative or apply pressure. Calling economies “dead” may be aimed at delegitimizing partnerships or trade alliances that contradict his policy goals. A spotlight on how India’s current economic trajectory diverges from the “dead economy” narrative.
India’s economic pulse vs. dystopian narratives
As an Opposition member Rahul Gandhi may critique what Trump says but a reality check shows that India’s economy is far from “dead.” In fact, it is one of the fastest-growing major economies globally, though challenges like high tariffs, MSME stress and geo-political friction do exist.
German Ambassador Philipp Ackermann challenged Donald Trump’s description of India’s economy as “dead’ but described India as “a market of now and the future.” He emphasised the need for “stability and predictability” in international relations and trade.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email