SEMOK alleges discrepancy in Ladakh Police recruitment; Police refutes allegations

VoL Desk, July 24: After Students Education Movement of Ladakh (SEMOK) alleged discrepancy in recently declared result of Ladakh Police, the Police in a post on their Facebook page issued an advisory regarding the allegations made against the recruitment list for the post of constables.

“We strongly rebut against all allegations. It is reiterated that all the marks awarded to the participating candidates have been made as per the laid down criteria for individual performance and qualifications which was widely advertised prior to the tests. The recruitment board has maintained a proof of all individual performances in both physical and written examination”, read the advisory.

“Any candidate having any grievance regarding his/ her performance can approach the board with specific queries regarding his/ her performance which will be replied to.

* Click to Follow Voice of Ladakh on WhatsApp *

“An appeal is made to all sections of the society to appreciate the fairness and transparency maintained throughout the conduct of the recruitment process and please desist from spreading false innuendos and misgivings.

“Any person found spreading false allegations and rumours with the intention of spreading disaffection among the public will be dealt with strictly as per the law”, read the advisory.

Earlier, on July 23, the Students Education Movement of Kargil, in a letter to the CEC Kargil had sought intervention in the alleged “unfair result of Ladakh Police Constable Recruitment”.

“… this is to bring to your kind information with abject disappointment certain issues that the result of the long awaited Ladakh Police Constable Recruitment is extremely unfair and biased towards one district of the UT”, read the SEMOK letter to CEC.

“…out of the 218 selected candidates only 83 belong to Kargil district. This comes up as a mere 38% of the total selected candidates.

“That, the said results reek of biasness in giving marks in the written examination as well as the 1000/1600 mtr (race). We have observed the following:

“Twenty Eight (28) candidates from Leh district have been given a perfect 25/25 marks in the 1000/1600mtr race while just six (06) candidates from Kargil district have received 25/25 marks

“Marking in the written examination appears very unbiased and it is evident from the fact that under Open Merit 37 candidates from Leh have been given over 80 marks while under ST Category 50 candidates have been given over 70 marks. The same figure for candidates from Kargil district stands at: 11 Candidates scoring over 80 marks under Open Merit, 32 Candidates scoring over 70
marks under ST.

“The average marks of selected Kargili candidates in the written exam is 66.5 marks whereas the average marks of selected candidates in the written examination is 73.5 marks.

“That, the result of only selected & waiting list candidates have been declared. The result of the rest of the candidates have not been declared which keeps majority of the candidates in darkness. We demand that the result of all the candidates must be declared irrespective of whether they have been selected or not.

“That, SPOS/VHG/ESM candidates have been selected against the quota of open merit candidates. Whereas, as per rule, these categories of candidates should be selected only against their own reserved quota.

“That, all aspirants have been expecting a fair result in the first major recruitment drive of UT Ladakh. This result has shattered the hopes of thousands of aspirants so much so that now we have apprehensions about the results of the upcoming SSC recruitments.

“Therefore, keeping in view the above points, we demand re-examination of the written test so that the faith of the general masses, especially the aspiring candidates, is restored in the government system. We request your kind intervention in the matter as majority of the suffering candidates belong to Kargil district.

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>