Fida hussain who topped last year is from sindh rural, he is from humble origins, he broke the 20 year old record of CSS.

I know dozens of qualifiers of this year most of them are from middle class families including me, but Alhamdulliah we secured good positions. Yes one or two might be there because of some "support" but that does not mean that you give judgment that all are bad.

indeed, Sir Fida is a great man. he is my teacher and i respect him from the core of my heart. May ALLAH give him every success here and here after

good.University lecturer cannot be appointed without MPhil Degree so how comes he.It is the policy of HEC.it means some hidden hand is operative when a PHD candidate was neglected for a mere MA History department of Quaid Azam University is full of 3rd divisioners.those who cant get admission in any university of Pakistan and abroad get admission in History department of Quaid Azam University.the full strength of the department has never come.large number of seats are always vacant.
Else i do not have CSS experience...so carry on this fruitful discussion.

@ proud ranjha

bro the topper passed his M.A. Examination with distinction and got chancellor's gold medal. and GCU is a college cum university ... he might have been teaching the students of intermediate .... my teacher applied for the masters and Mphil classes... and i do agree with u that a guy with a B.A degree can get admission @ QAU on self finance in MA history bczz this department has maximum no. of seats but plz don't ignore he is a gold medalist

i never meant to take the debate to some person.i congratulate all the qualified candidates their success.i do not regret CSS because i get pay in public sector which even a secretary cant get in BPS 22.
We are living in Thirld World country and there are possibilities of many things.poor may get top position but that he may deserve.an influential will for example jump from 6th to top position with one phone call.its a reality.
the panelists are human beings and have social contacts so every thing black and white is possible.

CSS doesn't only stand for Central Superior Services

It can also be used as

CSS Cascading Style Sheet

so the one who are unable to succeed in one should try hands with other. Every thing is discriminatory at some point. Even you can regret your fate, why you aren't the child of prime minister.

So try to find the skills of your and work on it. CSS isn't the end of life. Only the charm attached with it is the lust of power. They don't have as much good salaries as others have in private sector now.

And also one more thing, Please don't diminish the efforts of the CSS qualified personal by just saying it is discrimintatory

__________________
Regards,

Wahab Hussain

AoA ,

Those who think css is without corrupting influences, and is entirely blameless institution have based their argument on a premise that they themselves are selected via rigourous code of written and oral examination, They also base their argument that many with lower socio-economic status have made it to top notch slots,without aid of beauracrat or politically tilted support,therefore fpsc policy is without errors. keeping their view point, they are not 'wholly' wrong.
whereas those who consider that human beings run the system therefore like all other humanly run institution fpsc is at faults have some good examples under their belt.with example of a many people scoring good in written portion and flunking oral examination.... They too are not wholly wrong, because it seem that there are sporadic examples of people managing top slots in css, and few unlucky competitive souls seeing doom before their eyes.
I think every system has flaws, so does fpsc!. But the problme arises when we 'generalize' for example if u should say that two apples that fall on ground are rotten,therefore every apple of apple tree is bad. but we would definately say if 98 of out 100 apples do turn out be rotten, that particular tree bears rotten fruits...
in the case of css, many candidates are where they are because of their individual efforts. and as that, the system does demand applause, for howsoever we belittle worth of fpsc yet even those who got rewarding score and faild it prove that system is inherently good, since they themsleves strived with pure heart,that they would succeed.
it can be expected by candidates that merit is essential attribute of the system... perhaps tis is the only reason why most people go for it and many more r in queue.
{i m neither favoring this system nor saying anything to belittle it. cos i know even tho merit is prime policy,even then people in their slots are not specialized to the field in which they are chosen.A qualified candidate is selected in any field depending on his merit as though he was fit in every profession depending upon merit.}

Regards
dr.g.asghar memon

__________________
Quote: i hate quotes !

Doctor sahab is rite there are always some exceptional cases but 95 % of the qualifiers make it on their own and now plz end this discussion

The above debate is beneficial for dispelling the doubts of failed candidates.Being a Quaidian, i feel that all those Quaidians who have passed css deserved it.Rizwan Omar Gondal(1), Bokhari(5), Muhammad Usman(9), Lubna. we predicted them CSPs even during our MSc.Rizwan and Usman both got Gold Medals in History and International Relations respectively.Both were the presidents of History and International Relations Societies respectively.Bokhari has already done CSS in 2003.though i badly failed in English composition but i called the fpsc process fair and perfect.I believe that 98% of Fpsc process is fair.They do not have any stakes in selection process.
therefore every body should respect the fpsc exam process as it is the only hope of poors for getting good jobs.you would have seen that after failure few persons blame fpsc.the whole pinpoint their own flaws.including me.bureaucratic background may help in good schooling, guidance and inspiration but not IN SIFARISH.

[quote=Dr.G.AsgharMemon]AoA ,

Those who think css is without corrupting influences, and is entirely blameless institution have based their argument on a premise that they themselves are selected via rigourous code of written and oral examination, They also base their argument that many with lower socio-economic status have made it to top notch slots,without aid of beauracrat or politically tilted support,therefore fpsc policy is without errors. keeping their view point, they are not 'wholly' wrong.
whereas those who consider that human beings run the system therefore like all other humanly run institution fpsc is at faults have some good examples under their belt.with example of a many people scoring good in written portion and flunking oral examination.... They too are not wholly wrong, because it seem that there are sporadic examples of people managing top slots in css, and few unlucky competitive souls seeing doom before their eyes.
I think every system has flaws, so does fpsc!. But the problme arises when we 'generalize' for example if u should say that two apples that fall on ground are rotten,therefore every apple of apple tree is bad. but we would definately say if 98 of out 100 apples do turn out be rotten, that particular tree bears rotten fruits...
in the case of css, many candidates are where they are because of their individual efforts. and as that, the system does demand applause, for howsoever we belittle worth of fpsc yet even those who got rewarding score and faild it prove that system is inherently good, since they themsleves strived with pure heart,that they would succeed.
it can be expected by candidates that merit is essential attribute of the system... perhaps tis is the only reason why most people go for it and many more r in queue.
{i m neither favoring this system nor saying anything to belittle it. cos i know even tho merit is prime policy,even then people in their slots are not specialized to the field in which they are chosen.A qualified candidate is selected in any field depending on his merit as though he was fit in every profession depending upon merit.}

Sir, in your narative, although you give a generally agreed upon version of FPSC's mechanics, you are just contradicting yourself in your last statement. A system that choses people to serve in diverse fields based on their merit rather than taking into view thier holistic faculties is something i understand, from you description, you oppose. Then how can you be ambivalent in your opinion regarding its operation. For it may make you or me work hard and diligently, it seems that it does not really produce the end product, which i agree with you has to be individuals geared to be specialists or at-least resembling such specialists by virtue of their capabilility to be the 'right personel for the job' and not just cerebral in their outlook. And once we agree that the final outcome is a far cry from the very objectives of having the system how can it even justify its existence? let alone its capacity to perform?


Just some observations. Though im quite aware that this discussion is going to lead nowhere in terms of the problem being discussed since neither you nor me can as yet influence how it operates, though by critiquing the process we might in time be able to convince enough people that the process is really only as good as its output and the day our bureaucracy gets up on the rails again there shall be no need for some mindless idiot like myself to ramble on in a friday afternoon when there are better things to be done.

Have a good one.