Some PPSC interviews took less than a minute

“It is difficult to comprehend how a single PPSC member could evaluate the suitability of candidate and award marks out of 40,which were in his hands,within a minute or so,” reads the report handed over to the Registry of Punjab and Hayana High Court today.

“The time spent on the interview of the candidates ranges from less than one minute to 15 minutes or so,” the report states. The remarks given by the members to candidates are “vague and sketchy and reflect the complete arbitrariness of the process”,the report states.

In several cases,the report reads,the selectors have not bothered to affix any remarks whatsoever,leaving the remarks column blank.

Sketchy remarks

The remarks given by the members are worth a mention. “Poor personality,useless fellow”,this is the remark written by Sanjit Kumar Sinha,Chairman of the Commission,giving zero marks in interview to a candidate,Mohit Arora,who had secured 64.77 per cent in MBBS. Citing “poor,average personality,poor technical knowledge” as reasons for rejecting them,Sinha gave zero marks to nine candidates.

“A very confident candidate,who is well aware of the environment….good….excellent…..outstanding performance”,these are some of the remarks given by the PPSC members,the report states. As sketchy as they can get,the members have given no explanation behind giving outstanding marks to certain “favoured” candidates.

Shockingly,in several answer sheets no remarks were given by the members leaving blank columns,for reasons best known to them. These candidates were given 39-plus marks out of 40 in interview by the members but with the remarks column left blank.

Quorum flouted

The members of PPSC did not follow the “quorum” regarding the minimum number of members to be present in each panel formed by them to conduct interviews.

“The members constituted three panels designated as A,B and C to conduct interviews. Each panel was to constitute of four selectors,three members and one medical specialist. In some cases,the same panel would function with only two members of the PPSC and one medical specialist. Several interviews were conducted by the same panel with just one PPSC member and one medical specialist,” reads the inquiry report.

There are 74 such candidates from both selections,who were interviewed by a single PPSC member and were selected,the maximum by the Chairman himself,Sanjit Kumar Sinha. While Sinha singly interviewed and selected 32 candidates,Mohi did 24 followed by 10 singly interviewed by DS Grewal. Ravinder Kaur and DS Mahal alone interviewed six and two candidates respectively,the findings of the report state.

Rules violated

Not only is there overwriting on the record of minutes of meeting of the PPSC held on March 20,2009,the answer sheets of selected and rejected candidates are full of “overwriting and cuttings”.

Discernible to the naked eye,the answer sheets are marred with cuttings,over writings. Shockingly,in certain instances the interview date of a candidate,relative of a high up,was deferred for a month. Also,marks were changed,deleted,added by the members and also the subject specialists. Consider this: in the case of a selected candidate named Manmeet Kaur,the specialist increased marks from 34 per cent to 84 per cent by overwriting. Another glaring instance is of Amandeep Kaur: PPSC member DS Grewal has increased marks from 6 per cent to 70 per cent by cutting on the award sheet and the specialist has also increased marks from 13 per cent to 53 per cent. In a few instances,a candidate who was earlier shown absent was later marked present but his signature on the answer sheet is missing.

Members refused to hold written test

Making the excuse that conducting a written test for selection “would consume more than six months and would introduce an unnecessary delay”,PPSC members “unanimously” decided to reject Department of Health,Punjab’s proposal to conduct a written test. As it turned out,both the selection processes,even without the written test,took more than six months for completion.

The members,the report reads,left the scope and span of the interview “totally open and was both subjective and arbitrary”. No mention was made about the scope of personal interview in the advertisement,nor any criteria given. “Rather a veil of secrecy was maintained on the entire issue” states the report.

‘Social work’ above academics

“The attempt to base the selection on vague and ad hoc criteria not directly relevant to professional recruitment is further evident from the fact that a component of social service was introduced in the selection and it was given a relatively high weightage of 5 marks,whereas a weightage of only 3 marks was given to higher medical qualification. This fact was not mentioned at the time when initial advertisement for recruitment was given” the inquiry report states.

124 selected candidates produced 1045 false/procured certificates of social work

As per the Vigilance Bureau headed by Sumedh Singh Saini,several favoured candidates took advantage of the additional five marks for social work by producing certificates for the same,thereby putting deserving candidates at a disadvantage.

It is noteworthy here that a few candidates,who stand selected,produced five to seven fake certificates each to earn the additional marks. On verification of the certificates,the Bureau found that a “large number of concerned officials/officers have disclosed that these certificates have neither been issued by them nor do they bear their signatures”. In certain instances “some officials who issued these certificates have acknowledged that the certificates bear their signatures but on the said dates,no medical camp was held”.