Merit Undermined? Recruitment Data Reveals Disparities in Selection Process

SRINAGAR: Fresh data from a recent recruitment examination in Jammu and Kashmir has sparked sharp public debate over the fairness of the selection process. Central to the controversy is how the open merit quota was effectively diluted, as well as a stark regional divide between the Jammu and Kashmir divisions in both performance and final selection.

The examination was held for 176 posts, of which only 71—roughly 40 percent—were formally listed under the open merit (OM) category. The remaining 60 percent were divided among reserved categories. A total of 675 candidates appeared for the test.

What is now causing deep concern is that although 71 seats were meant for OM, only 55 were filled by general category candidates. The rest—16 posts—were taken by reserved category candidates who qualified under the OM quota, further shrinking the actual space available to unreserved aspirants. Out of these 55, as many as 43 were from Kashmir division, while only 12 were from Jammu. This means nearly 80 percent of general category selections came from Kashmir.

Meanwhile, the cut-off scores needed to qualify varied dramatically across categories. General category candidates had to score a minimum of 70.5 marks to make the cut. In sharp contrast, candidates from categories like EWS, SC, ST, OBC, and RBA qualified with marks ranging between 36 and 65. For instance, the last candidate selected under the EWS quota had a score of 36 and ranked 599, while RBA closed at 64.75 marks with a rank of 163. This significant gap in qualifying scores has led many to question whether the recruitment system is undermining academic merit.

Adding to the resentment is the application fee structure. General category candidates had to pay Rs 1200 to sit for the exam, nearly double the Rs 700 charged to reserved category candidates. Critics argue this amounts to subsidising a process that ultimately disadvantages them.

In terms of final selections, 89 out of 155 candidates selected were from Jammu division and 66 from Kashmir. This outcome has raised eyebrows since Kashmiri candidates dominated the upper ranks of the merit list. In the 105 seats filled under various reservation categories, only 23 went to candidates from Kashmir, while the remaining 82 went to aspirants from Jammu. Analysts say this data dispels the perception that Kashmir dominates public sector recruitments and points instead to a growing imbalance in favour of Jammu within the reserved categories.

Another major concern is the failure to fill seats under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota. Of the 17 seats reserved for EWS candidates, 15 remained vacant. Sources suggest that overly rigid eligibility criteria were responsible for this shortfall. Many are now demanding a review of the EWS policy design to ensure that genuinely needy candidates are not excluded by technicalities.

For many aspirants, the results have triggered a sense of betrayal. One candidate, who failed to qualify despite scoring above 69 marks, described the recruitment process as “a daylight robbery of merit, dreams and dignity.” The sentiment is being echoed across social media platforms, with many calling for greater transparency, a re-evaluation of the reservation matrix, and an end to what they see as a creeping erosion of meritocracy.

As Jammu and Kashmir continues to face a grim employment scenario, the controversy has re-opened the fault lines around equity, access, and fairness in public sector hiring—forcing the administration to respond not just with data but with decisive policy reform.