5 marks deduction in each paper affectees
 

Some forum members put forwarded a 5 marks deduction theory for shortlisting of CSS 2010 qualified candidates.
THere might be a possibility that candidates who are failed in any subject from less than 5 marks are affected by it.
I ask is there any person who can guide us about this shortlisting formula in css 2010.
Can we watch our papers after paying fee to FPSC?

candidates failing in less than 5 marks in any subject/subjects report plz.

Answer papers in all the subjects of examination are secret documents and cannot, therefore, be permitted to be seen by the candidates or their representatives nor re-examination of answer books/scripts is allowed under any circumstances. A candidate desirous of getting of his/her marks, awarded by the examiners re-counted may submit his request for the purpose, within one month from the date of issue of result card/marks sheet alongwith a Treasury Challan of Rs. 200/- per paper as fee for re-checking/ recounting of marks only. Thereafter, no such request will be entertained.

[QUOTE=DEADLYDOCTOR;228834]Answer papers in all the subjects of examination are secret documents and cannot, therefore, be permitted to be seen by the candidates or their representatives nor re-examination of answer books/scripts is allowed under any circumstances. A candidate desirous of getting of his/her marks, awarded by the examiners re-counted may submit his request for the purpose, within one month from the date of issue of result card/marks sheet alongwith a Treasury Challan of Rs. 200/- per paper as fee for re-checking/ recounting of marks only. Thereafter, no such request will be entertained.[/QUOTE]

secret documents to hain answer sheets,magar yeh kon sa america maang raha hain dekghne ke liye, jiss candidate ki hai wahi dekhna chahta hain,,,,,,,and just to see in order to be ensured ke answersheets gum nahin huwin, ya koi 5 marks deduce nahin kiyai jai final marking se, ya iss liye ke pata to chale ke waqyai papers mark huwai hain, farzi NO nahin lagai jai?

[SIZE="6"]Any mechanism for above queries?[/SIZE]

Well said DeadlyDoctor

NOT VERY WELL SAID at all...... any candidate who has been throu the exam experience can understand the anxiety level of fellow candidates.... there has to be some solution... and
@ DEADLYDOCTOR
@ Zamary Khan
dont forget this is Planet Earth we are living in Everything has a solution... and for sake of improvement a candidate has basic right to view there exam papers because FPSC is not the only party involved
and as the case of [B]possibility [/B]is concerned plz refer to Dawn News report on 20 Oct 2010, a petition by a group of Sindh Rural Candidate 2008 suggest that 50% marks is a too HIGH mark to qualify keeping in view the education standards of Rural areas
[URL="http://http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/local/fpsc-rule-on-minimum-marks-struck-down-000"]http://http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/local/fpsc-rule-on-minimum-marks-struck-down-000[/URL]

@ayesha
what i have posted above is one of rules of fpsc.
and the link you are posting is a demand ,not a rule yet.
when we submit our applications for css we agree with all rules of css and cannot go against those rules

KARACHI, Oct 19: The Sindh [B]High Court on Tuesday struck down a rule[/B] of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, framed by the Federal Public Service Commission of Pakistan (FPSC) requiring the candidates belonging to the rural parts of the province to obtain at least 50 per cent aggregate marks for appointment.

Ghulam Shabbir Jaskani, Shahnaz Zardari and 10 others, who were declared failed in the FPSC examination in 2008, had assailed the Rule 11 (i) which said that a candidate who failed to secure 50 per cent marks in the aggregate would be considered to have failed and would not be eligible for appointment.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Malik Naeem Iqbal, prayed to the court to declare the FPSC rule illegal and ultra vires of Articles 4, 25, 27, and 37 of the constitution. They also prayed for their appointment if qualified in further examination.

Their counsel contended that the petitioners were poor citizens belonging to various districts of Sindh and obtained education in very difficult circumstances with very limited resources.

Advocate Naeem Iqbal submitted that the petitioners passed all subjects, yet they marginally could not meet the minimum requirement of 50 per cent marks in the aggregate, and consequently they were not called for viva-voce.

He argued that the state was under obligation to promote higher education among the people of backward areas and simultaneously to accommodate the interests of socially or economically disadvantaged sections of the people.

The counsel submitted that a number of seats allocated to Sindh remained unfilled/ vacant for three years and these were allocated to other provinces. He said that the condition of obtaining 50 per cent aggregate marks was obstructing the candidates of Sindh, who were at a disadvantageous position due to paucity of resources and facilities to compete with the candidates from developed areas with innumerable resources and facilities to educate themselves.

Resultantly, he said, the province was not getting representation in posts of the federal government in accordance with its share.

Advocate Naeem Iqbal contended that application of rule of aggregate to the candidates from less privileged areas was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to Article 37 of the constitution.

The counsel submitted that Sindh’s share in the federal civil service was 19 per cent that was sub-allocated in the ratio of 60 per cent for rural areas and 40 per for urban areas. He contended that the petitioners belonged to remote areas and due to lack of proper guidance and low standards of education they might not be able to compete with the candidates of other provinces and area.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Abdul Hadi Khoso had reserved the judgment after hearing the arguments of Advocate Naeem Iqbal and Deputy Attorney General Mian Khan Malik.

The court in its order observed that the statement filed on behalf of the respondents regarding the seats allocated, filled and unfilled from 1990 to 2008 showed that the allocated quota of Sindh had been going un-availed for the last many years for want of candidates qualifying 50 per cent aggregate marks for further examination.

The court order said: “Hence it appears that Rule 11(i) of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 negates the quota allocated to Sindh Province and is in direct conflict with Articles 27 and 37 (a) of the Constitution, 1973.”

The court also opined that Rule 11(i) of the FPSC Rules, 2008 could not override the provisions of Article 27.

The court observed: “For the foregoing reasons in our view the quota reserved for the citizens of backward and less developed areas could not be allowed to be reduced, and the allocated seats for the candidates of particular area remain unfilled, which would create a sense of deprivation among the citizens of Pakistan belonging to Sindh province.”

Consequently, the court observed the rule was ultra vires of the constitution and struck it down.

The court also directed the respondent FPSC and federal government to allow the petitioners to appear in examination for their final selection.

Right of Dissent is always there !!!!!!!!!! respect that :))

@ayesha..
right of [B]dissent[/B]..not descent..kindly correct

[QUOTE=DEADLYDOCTOR;229991]@ayesha
[B]what i have posted above is one of rules of fpsc.
and the link you are posting is a demand ,not a rule yet.[/B]
[/QUOTE]

Brother, the link that is referred to is not a demand now, it is the decision/ verdict of the High Court and for your kind information the decision of a court is a precedent (rule) for the others to follow.
If you don't agree with the decision, that is another matter. We can't change the facts by simply ignoring them. and the fact is this that the education standard of the rural areas of the country is not upto the level of that of Punjab (Lahore/Faisalabad), you can not measure both education conditions (Rural and Urban) at the same parameter (50% aggregate).
What to talk to aggregate, just passing the papers is a milestone for the candidates of un-previledged, less/un-educated, under-devloped and down-trodden areas. and this is clear discrimination which is vehemently against the soul and spirit of the Constitution.