About a decade ago, while I was pursuing my graduation, my father, despite having faced his own share of adversity, remained a man of education, vision, and aspiration. Among his many hopes for me, one stood out distinctly: he dreamed of seeing me become a doctor. However, owing to lack of proper academic guidance and counselling, along with other intervening factors (financial constraints, notably, were never among them, as my parents consistently assured their support), I was unable to continue in the medical stream.
Consequently, I transitioned into the field of computer science. I completed both my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in the discipline, with the aspiration of entering academia by qualifying for lectureship examinations. Unfortunately, despite the significance and growing relevance of the subject, no opportunities were advertised in this domain by the concerned recruiting bodies, leaving many aspirants, including myself, in a state of prolonged uncertainty.
With limited prospects in the private sector within the region, I found myself compelled to undertake a complete paradigm shift, moving away from my academic specialization towards preparing for competitive examinations conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB). This transition was neither simple nor comfortable. Entering an entirely unfamiliar field demanded relentless effort, long hours of study, and considerable mental resilience. It was, by all measures, an arduous journey.
However, my experience is far from an isolated case. Lakhs of aspirants across the region find themselves navigating similar trajectories, driven more by necessity than by choice, and united by a shared struggle. This narrative, therefore, is not merely personal; it represents the collective voice of countless individuals who dedicate their days and nights to preparing for these examinations, often in the face of uncertainty, limited opportunities, and systemic challenges.
Turning to the examination patterns and methodologies adopted by such recruiting bodies, it is evident that for a considerable period, a relatively consistent structure was followed. While the level of difficulty fluctuated, sometimes moderate, at other times challenging, the underlying framework remained predictable. This predictability enabled candidates from diverse educational backgrounds to prepare strategically, calibrating their efforts in accordance with established patterns. Historically, JKSSB examinations did not delve excessively deep into niche or highly technical domains, a practice that could be justified given the nature of the posts and the varied academic backgrounds of the candidates.
However, recent examinations have marked a significant departure from this approach. The question papers have exhibited a striking shift, becoming not only unexpectedly complex but also heavily statement based and analytically demanding. In several instances, questions were framed in a manner such that their answers could not be directly traced to conventional preparation materials that aspirants had relied upon over the years. This stands in contrast even to examinations conducted by bodies such as the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), where, despite a higher level of difficulty, the questions generally remain grounded in standard sources.
Many aspirants, including myself, relied on widely accepted preparatory materials such as Arihant publications and comprehensive video lectures by established educators, which had historically aligned well with JKSSB standards. The abrupt shift in the pattern, however, rendered much of this preparation insufficient. While it is true that the questions were logically solvable, the time required to carefully analyse multiple statements and evaluate closely related answer options significantly exceeded practical limits during the examination. In many cases, a single question demanded several minutes of focused attention, an impractical expectation in a time bound competitive setting.
The implications of this shift are substantial. Aspirants who had invested years, often five or more, in mastering the earlier pattern now find themselves at a disadvantage. Those who previously missed selection by marginal differences of 0.25 or 1 mark are now reporting scores as low as 20 to 30 out of 80, reflecting not merely a dip in performance but a systemic mismatch between preparation and evaluation. It is reasonable to infer that a vast majority of candidates, perhaps as many as 99 percent, are experiencing similar challenges.
This raises a fundamental question regarding the principles that should guide public recruitment examinations. While increasing the level of competition and analytical rigor is, in itself, not objectionable, such changes must be introduced with transparency, gradual transition, and alignment with the nature of the posts. The majority of JKSSB aspirants come from non technical and non engineering backgrounds. An examination pattern that disproportionately emphasizes abstract reasoning or unconventional questioning risks undermining the very objective of equitable assessment.
There is, therefore, a compelling case for JKSSB to revisit its recent approach. A balanced framework, one that retains a reasonable level of difficulty while remaining anchored in a predictable and accessible syllabus, would better serve both the institution and the aspirants. Competitive examinations should test merit, not adaptability to abrupt and uncommunicated changes.
Ultimately, the credibility of any recruitment system rests not merely on its ability to filter candidates, but on its fairness, consistency, and alignment with the realities of those it seeks to evaluate. For thousands of aspirants whose futures hinge on these examinations, these are not abstract concerns, they are matters of profound consequence.
Gmail: shahidmalik23225544@gmail.com
