I was cogitating whether or not to make public the various discrepancy with regard to graduate teacher (maths & science) exam 2017-18, as per my findings on the basis of RTI disclosures No.ED/RTI-A/2014-15 dated, Kohima the 24th Jan 2018 furnished to me by the Directorate of School Education, Kohima, Nagaland. I then decided to first approach the concerned department for clarification on the same, hoping that the department would immediately do the required necessary needful and do me justice as I had excelled over some other selected candidates in all areas of competition (both external exam and in academics) as per the first RTI disclosure so that I may not be blamed for going public and not approaching them first. I let them, make know the various anomalies in awarding of internal marks (based on academic records) that have been consciously and deliberately inflated in favour of many selected candidates. They acknowledged the errors but gave an inane reason that it was human error. Had there been an error or two, I would have accepted and agreed as human error and let go. But here, the error was humongous and multitudinous that their pathetic excuse, “human error” does not hold any water as more than 70% of the selected candidate’s internal marks were found inflated as per the first RTI disclosure No.ED/RTI-A/2014-15 dated, Kohima the 24th Jan 2018, most of who otherwise could not have made it to the list of successful candidates. It is amusing that the Directorate of School Education would come up with a facetious and inane explanation that it was a human error when it is obvious as per first RTI disclosure that the department had consciously and deliberately inflated the internal marks of many selected candidates to get them selected. I use “consciously and deliberately” because as per first RTI disclosure;
1. Those selected candidates who scored low marks in external exam (Maths paper-I & II, conducted by the department) were awarded with inflated internal marks (academic) to help them get selected.
2. As per Directorate of School Education Advertisement No.NL/SE 1/2017,NO.RECRUITMENT -POLICY/120/2017 Dated Kohima August 2017, 5% marks bonus was to be awarded to candidates with “honours or higher qualifications like PG/M.Phil/Ph.D. The same was not awarded to me whereas the bonus marks was awarded to selected candidates with higher qualifications LIKE PG/M.Phil/Ph.D. The dept. refused to listen to my repeated plea to award me the 5% bonus marks as per the advt. (I being mathematics honours students with 59.50%). The reason being, they have decided to do away with 5% marks bonus for honours. So, the big question here is,
a) How could the department go against their own advt. and change the recruitment rules at the time of declaration of result.
The answer is simple; the department selected 29 engineering students for graduate teacher (maths) as per RTI disclosure NO.ED/RTI-A/2014-15 Dated, Kohima the 26th March 2018. These engineering candidates cannot be awarded 5% marks bonus and since some of these selected engineering candidates will not make it to the list of successful candidates if 5% marks bonus is awarded to candidates with Honours, the department decided to do away with 5% marks bonus for honours. Now, this is not a “human or technical error” but a “clear, conscious and deliberate error” to select the candidates by choice and not by merit.
The official complaint regarding the inflated internal marks was made on 08th of February 2018, the department acknowledged the error and informed me that they will review the same at the earliest and will get back to me for clarification.
Now faced with the situation to review and correct the inflated internal marks (academic) of the selected candidates some of who would not make it to the list of successful after the review, the Directorate of School Education took a comical decision to review the external exam (answer script) of the selected candidates where no complaint was made. I repeat, no complaint was made on External exam marks which seem OK. So, the question here is,
a) Why the Directorate of School Education decided to review the external marks of the selected candidates when no complaint was made on the external exam marks??
Any layman would understand that, with the manipulation of internal marks in the knowledge of some of the aggrieved candidates, they now, had to award internal marks based on genuine academic records. And so, the review of external exam paper was done with the intent to balance and make up for the loss in internal marks (academic) by manipulating with the external exam mark, without which, many of the selected candidates would not have made it to the selected list. This was confirmed in the RTI DISCLOSURE NO.ED/RTI-B/2014-15 Dated, Kohima the 5th of February 2018, where the external marks of many selected candidate’s were inflated in some case, an increase by over 50-60 marks. The mark of a particular candidate who scored only 149 (Maths paper I & II combined) in external exam as per RTI disclosure No.ED/RTI-A/2014-15 dated, Kohima the 24th Jan 2018 was inflated to 206, an increase of 57 marks as per RTI DISCLOSURE NO.ED/RTI-B/2014-15 Dated, Kohima the 5th of February 2018, and many more. When asked the reason for that, “technical error” was the excuse again. So, the question is;
a) School Education department, please explain the technical error, you explained that error was made while working on an excel worksheet, so, please explain that. Neither your excel worksheet/formulas are different from others nor the staffs of School Education department only knows how to use Excel.
b) How do your excel worksheet or formulas explain the inflated external marks of the selected candidates when complaint was made only on the inflated internal marks.
c) Did your excel worksheet told you to review the external exam marks also while reviewing and correcting the inflated internal marks where complaint was made?
As per the verbal request made to the PIO (Addl. Director) and Director of School Education, I was allowed to check my answer script wherein in Maths Paper –II, Question No.18 which carries 9 marks, the question was, An iron spherical ball is melted and recast into smaller balls of equal size. If the radius of each of the smaller balls is ¼ of the original ball, how many such balls are made? Compare the surface area of all the smaller balls combined together with that of the original ball.
In this Q, I got correct answer to first part of the question and so, I should have been awarded 4.5 marks, but surprisingly, no mark was awarded to me for this question and when requested to award me with the mark, they simply told that they cannot do anything as it was the invigilators fault. I was then again told to go and meet the Secretary, School education who told me that direction has been given to the Directorate to do the needful. I came back to the Directorate and told the same to the PIO who assured me to look into the matter but nothing was done.
Therefore, my question to the School Education Department is;
1. Why was I denied 4.5 marks in Question No.18 of Maths Paper-II, when I have got the correct answer to the first part of the question.
2. Why was 5% mark bonus not awarded to me because as per your Advertisement No.NL/SE 1/2017,NO.RECRUITMENT -POLICY/120/2017 Dated Kohima August 2017, 5% marks bonus was to be awarded to candidates with “honours or higher qualifications like PG/M.Phil/Ph.D when it’s very clear “honours or higher qualification...” and not honours with higher qualification.
This is very important to me because even after the review, inflated external marks, corrigendum and declaration of result the second time for Graduate teacher (maths) and issue of appointment order by the department, if the above mentioned discriminations are addressed, my overall percentage score would be 49.72% which is still higher than 49.66%, 49.49% and 49.38%; the last three general candidates (maths) selected ranked 50th, 51st & 52nd after correction and final declaration of result the second time and to whom the department had already issued Appointment Orders. My point here is, with or without technical error, either with the first or the second result, I deserve to be among the list of selected candidates by merit.
The apathy of the department has compelled me to file a writ petition in the court and the case is ongoing and whatever may be the outcome, I’ve done genuinely well and have a good academic record and so, if my grievances are not addressed, it’s just the beginning and not the end. I will fight on till I get justice. I also appeal to Minister in charge of School Education who stood election on the promise to stand against corruption, against injustice, against discrimination to his people to look into my this genuine issue as you may not be aware/may not be made aware of the details of this case given that all the above incidents happened before you took over. Lastly, it’s not a sympathy seeking article but my fight against injustice, against “what can he really do” attitude of the School Education department. I have raised some questions here. The department should clarify and come clean on it and let the people also be the judge.
