Muhammad Ashraf Bukhari, Secretary Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission talks with GK staffers D A Rashid   and Manzoor-ul-Hassan at length about the functioning of the Commission in the backdrop of the recent controversy that bogged the Commission. Here are the excerpts:

GK: PSC’s image in public is not very encouraging. How do you respond to this.
MAB: With just small staff strength of 50, the PSC is in a position to perform nicely and to the satisfaction of public. We have been doing an extra ordinary job under very trying circumstances. We have been conducting exams on regular basis for several months without any fail. In 2009, there was a backlog of 5000 vacancies, the Commission diligently made the selections and today only 400 selections are lying with it. But no one is considering our performance seriously. The Commission has made the KAS exams a regular feature, being conducted annually now. We also conducted screening tests for various selections including lecturers, and made the selections by and by. More than 1 Lakh candidates appeared in these tests and examinations. And there is Revenue department’s exam which is considered as mini KAS because we have to check more than 10, 000 papers. 13 departmental examinations are conducted twice a year now. Commission also assists UPSC in conducting numerous examinations in the state. Isn’t that enough. And then you can’t be selective about evaluating the performance of any institution.

GK:  Do you think the recent case of serious error in evaluation entails change in the procedure of evaluation?
MAB: No, evaluation is not a subject of discussion here. The candidates had already secured the marks, and it was only a typographical error that their scores had ebbed.

GK: But why did Commission hide the mistake, by not publishing the names of the two candidates a day before, when it notified those names of the candidates who had shown no change in the marks after rechecking?
MAB: The matter was under process and the communication with General Administration Department was going on to settle the issue. It is the procedure which takes time, so we couldn’t publish the names immediately.

GK: But wasn’t it  required to notify the names before sending the communication to GAD.
MAB: No. An enquiry was already underway in the Commission and two officials responsible for the error were under suspension. We had nothing to hide and we don’t share enquiries within the Commission.

GK: It is a prestigious exam; how could such an error happen?
MAB: About 90 thousand answer scripts were to be checked, and computed; one cannot rule out a mistake. The strength of the officials in PSC is only 50, who have to reel under an inordinate workload round the year.    

GK: PSC invokes enough criticism over selection of lecturers; even the integrity of the members comes under question?
MAB: No one can judge integrity. Our members are experienced with a great deal of exposure, and a towering integrity. The selections are always fair.

GK: But, the Commission has a dubious distinction of selecting a candidate as lecturer who had not appeared in any interview?
MAB: Give me the details and the Commission will take action; and exemplary punishment would be given to the culpable within a week.

GK: There is a gnawing question that you impeded in-service candidates from appearing in Combined Services Examination on the grounds that they had not completed three years of service which was a requirement under SRO 161 but GAD has different view; under the SRO no such requirement vis-à-vis the service is required.
MAB: We have hammered out the issue now. Under the new notification published, there is no bar for a candidate to have completed three years of service.

GK: But in the past you have barred thousands of in-service candidates, depriving them of their right to sit in the KAS examination.
MAB: No, only two candidates were bared from the interview. Later, however, they too were allowed for interviews, but they couldn’t make it to the final selection.

GK: The candidates applying for lecturer posts have been crying hoarse over years that the marks secured in the screening tests should have some scope in the overall selection merit, why the Commission doesn’t consider it?
MAB: No Public Services Commission of any state counts the screening marks in the overall merit of the candidates. Screening test is conducted merely to minimize the number of candidates appearing in the interview.

GK: But our candidates seem to have lost faith in the interview process.
MAB: We have to place faith in the people who conduct the interviews. The chairman and members of the Commission have an integrity which is above reproach.

GK: Why do you deny the candidates the Xerox copies of answer scripts, when they are entitled to this under the J&K Right to Information Act? 
MAB: No PSC of the country provides for rules to give Xerox copies of answer sheets to the candidates who appear in examinations. Even the Union Public Service Commission has no provision to provide answer scripts to the candidates. There are several Supreme Court judgments in support of the Commission’s stand.

GK: But, under the J&K RTI Act, a candidate can seek his answer paper as the Act makes a room for it.
MAB: No. The PSC has insulation as there are Supreme Court judgments that the Commission’s work shouldn’t get hampered with an extra ordinary burden of providing photocopies of the answer scripts to the candidates.

GK: What is the Commission doing about making the process more transparent and error free?
MAB: We are digitizing all the master copies present in our store room including confidential files since 1984. And we are updating our website.

Lastupdate on : Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:00:00 IST