Originally Posted by usman khalid

Brother, with due respect, you claim that your purpose of this thread was to point out those repeaters who despite being in their desired group reappear to improve their position/merit. But on the other hand, in your very first post you have mentioned:



Now, tell me whether these toppers were improving their positions?? You should know that they reappeard to get/improve their groups which is the right of every candidate. I don't deny the fact that there might have been some candidates who reappear to improve their position despite being in their favourite group. But how many are such candidates?? Can you give me a dozen of examples of such repeaters in CSS History??? If you know one or two such candidates and generlize this to the extent that such repeaters are making life difficult for fresh candidates, its not true.

Now if you suggest measures to penalize repeaters. Think this way: suppose a candidate prepares for 2 months and manges to qualify but can't get allocaiton/desired group. Further suppose that next year, he prepares for 4-5 months. Now there is a fresh candidate who has been preparing for exam for a year or even more. Both are competing in next year, don't you think fresh candidate will be better prepared than the repeater? Now, if one proposes to implement penalties on such fresh candidates, will it make sense? Obviously not!! Giving an attempt doesn't install in some one super natural abilities to perform better in next attempt. One has to study like a fresh candidate to acquire good marks/position unless he/she is very lucky.

Term 'incompetent competitors' is not singular rather plural so how can it be intended for you? It has been said in general context for all those candidates who are afraid of competition and I also endorse its veracity.