How can i be declared a FAILED CANDIDATE - Page 10

izhar ahmad · #91 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Nate sir...can i please get your contact number in order to discuss our issue in detail before i visit FPSC office??? Waiting sir

Nate · #92 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by izhar ahmad

Nate sir...can i please get your contact number in order to discuss our issue in detail before i visit FPSC office??? Waiting sir

Brother contact me on my email. I ll mail u my contact number. Ok

umarabbas · #93 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate

Brother i have revised the rules of css 2012 and css 2013. Only this differnce was there. As follows.

According to RULES FOR COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION CSS-2013
Page 3 Article 11 (i)
The Commission with prior approval of the Government may fix qualifying marks in any or all of the subjects of the examination but a candidate who fails to secure at least 40% marks in any compulsory subject, 33% marks in any of optional subjects, 50% marks in the Aggregate and 100 marks in Viva Voce, will be considered to have failed and will not be eligible for appointment.

Previous Rule:

(who fails to secure at least 40% marks in any compulsory subject, 33% marks in any of the optional subjects, OR 50% marks in the Aggregate and 100 marks at the Viva Voce, will be considered to have failed and will not be eligible for appointment.)

Thus jus by removing the OR it does not change the whole meaning. Trust me u can read the rule again n again and you wont be find any ans to it.

I want a coke, a cake, a pastry and a cup of tea! (2013) [I want all

]
I want a coke, a cake, or a pastry and a cup of tea! (2012) [I definitely want a cup of tea- but coke, cake or pastry will disqualify me]

hmm interesting rules

Tashfeen Alam · #94 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

the only advise that you need is to not be trapped in the delay tactics of fpsc.
trust me, its the only factor against you

government institutions delay intentially

Nate · #95 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by umarabbas

I want a coke, a cake, a pastry and a cup of tea! (2013) [I want all

]
I want a coke, a cake, or a pastry and a cup of tea! (2012) [I definitely want a cup of tea- but coke, cake or pastry will disqualify me]

hmm interesting rules

You have summed up all my brother. Trust me i myself dont knw what i want now a coke a cup of tea or a pastry. Leave me FPSC itself dont knw what she wants lol. Anyways hats off these so called vague and career destroying rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashfeen Alam

the only advise that you need is to not be trapped in the delay tactics of fpsc.
trust me, its the only factor against you

government institutions delay intentially

That is why i am more in favor of jus filing the writ against this institution rather play hide and seek with them. I dont wanna get bogged down in these so called red tapism of fpsc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashfeen Alam

the only advise that you need is to not be trapped in the delay tactics of fpsc.
trust me, its the only factor against you

government institutions delay intentially

Just a quick advice i need my brother. Fpsc appeal and personal hearing would be useless that we all know. Like you stated they ll waste ur time intentionally. So i think its better that i should file a case against them in the high court. And get myself the interim order. I have prepared evrything with my mamo who is a senior advocate of supreme court.

Tashfeen Alam · #96 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

its good that you have competent lawyer at your side.

proper channel for you would be first go for the hearing with the fpsc and then go to courts.

but the "delay factor" is the threat.

the biggest confusion in your unfortunate situation is that the official stance of the FPSC is still unknown.

For me, it is a clerical error that would be rectified immediately inshallah.

but one cannot rest on it. it involves your future.

So, if I were you, I would have filed petition at high court as well as applied for hearing at FPSC.

my sincerest advice for you is that you discuss it with your uncle who is lawyer. and also ask him to consult couple of lawyers who have fought against FPSC at court.

But dear I am repeating one thing again.

The government institutions do delay tactics.
so time is of great essence.

and if you can somehow meet the chairman in person then it would be great

Nate · #97 Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashfeen Alam

its good that you have competent lawyer at your side.

proper channel for you would be first go for the hearing with the fpsc and then go to courts.

but the "delay factor" is the threat.

the biggest confusion in your unfortunate situation is that the official stance of the FPSC is still unknown.

For me, it is a clerical error that would be rectified immediately inshallah.

but one cannot rest on it. it involves your future.

So, if I were you, I would have filed petition at high court as well as applied for hearing at FPSC.

my sincerest advice for you is that you discuss it with your uncle who is lawyer. and also ask him to consult couple of lawyers who have fought against FPSC at court.

But dear I am repeating one thing again.

The government institutions do delay tactics.
so time is of great essence.

Thanks alot brother for your input here. Well thats what i am doing as well. I have filed the petition as fpsc itself seems dont knw what they are doing. One is saying you are pass according to past precedents while the others are saying an other story. And also i dont know when they will call me up for hearing. As time is important here like u said. I cant afford delays. So i think along with the appeal to fpsc i ll file the writ in court as well. And yes definately i ll ask my uncle to consult various lawyers but then again we have a strong case at our hands.

mahmood · #98 Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Last Island

Rule has changed I suppose. Let me quote:

QUALIFYING MARKS

11. (i) The Commission with prior approval of the Government may fix qualifying marks in any or all of the subjects of the examination but a candidate who fails to secure at least 40% marks in any compulsory subject, 33% marks in any of the optional subjects, 50% marks in the Aggregate and 100 marks at the Viva Voce, will be considered to have failed and will not be eligible for appointment.

I was just going through an old syllabus for the 2002 exam. the rule there is written as follows:

2 (i) the commission with prior approval of the Government may fix qualifyng marks in any or all of the subjects of teh examination but a candidate who fails to secure at least 40% marks in any compulsory subject, 50% marks in the aggregate or 100 marks at the viva voce test, will be considered to have failed and will not be eligible for appointment.

3. From the marks assigned to candidates in each subject, such will be made as the commission may consider necessary in order to ensure that no credit is allowed for merely superficial knkowledge "candidates who obtain less than 40% marks in any of the compulsory subjects and 33% marks in the optional subjects will not be given credit in that subject."

I have quoted this rule verbatim from Dogar sons 12 years optional papers book. the notification is dated 12/02/2002 so i am presuming it is for the 2003 examination.

The matter is now clear to me. the rule has changed. previously only no credit was given in optional when you could not obtain 33% marks in an optional because you were deemed to have superficial knowledge. it was never mentioned in the failing criteria. now it has been included in the failing criteria. so i guess you wil have to wait for another year.

i think the matter is resolved now. it needs to be seen when this change was made. if this rule has been changed then you dont have a case. you only have a case if there has been prior approval from teh competent authority. if they had approval from the competent authority, then you dont have a case.

Nate · #99 Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahmood

I was just going through an old syllabus for the 2002 exam. the rule there is written as follows:

2 (i) the commission with prior approval of the Government may fix qualifyng marks in any or all of the subjects of teh examination but a candidate who fails to secure at least 40% marks in any compulsory subject, 50% marks in the aggregate or 100 marks at the viva voce test, will be considered to have failed and will not be eligible for appointment.

3. From the marks assigned to candidates in each subject, such will be made as the commission may consider necessary in order to ensure that no credit is allowed for merely superficial knkowledge "candidates who obtain less than 40% marks in any of the compulsory subjects and 33% marks in the optional subjects will not be given credit in that subject."

I have quoted this rule verbatim from Dogar sons 12 years optional papers book. the notification is dated 12/02/2002 so i am presuming it is for the 2003 examination.

The matter is now clear to me. the rule has changed. previously only no credit was given in optional when you could not obtain 33% marks in an optional because you were deemed to have superficial knowledge. it was never mentioned in the failing criteria. now it has been included in the failing criteria. so i guess you wil have to wait for another year.

i think the matter is resolved now. it needs to be seen when this change was made. if this rule has been changed then you dont have a case. you only have a case if there has been prior approval from teh competent authority. if they had approval from the competent authority, then you dont have a case.

I agree to what you said brother. That is what i am looking for that when this change had been made as last year its clear that people who failed in their options were still deemed successful. And when this change happned that is what i am hunting high and low.

bear · #**100** Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilal Hassan

Sir you are forming a conjunction of A with the disjunction B V C, both are truth functional connectives and I hope you know that a conjunction is only true when all of its conjuncts have same truth value and are true. In row 5 and 7, the truth value of A is false then how can the Truth Functional Compound statement A . B v C be True? The conjunction A . B v C would only be true when A is true and B v C is true separately and only then the whole conjunctive statement would be true. And it has got nothing to do with Boolean Interpretation, Bool has just discussed the problem of Existential Import when he discusses the Categorical Syllogism, this is Symbolic Logic and it has got nothing to do with Boolean Interpretation.

Brother he is trying to show you that you are mistaken, that argument is in favor of FPSC. However, my sincere prayers are with you, I can feel the dilemma that you are going through, have faith in Allah almighty, what is written in your fate by Allah, no FPSC or anyone else can deprive you from that.
Best of Luck.

the below image is what you said had problems on line 5 and 7 . although they are good and sound as per the laws of algebra .

now lets examine what you have asked to analyse .
according to you AND-ing ( conjunction) should be done in the end and first we need to perform the OR ( disjunction )
lets have a look at the table for A and ( B or C )

just look at the line 2 , here FPSC violated the rule ( although i used the expression just like you asked me to use)

in short the 2012 rules were almost same as those in 2013 but candidates in 2012 were dealt according to the old rules of 2001 - 2002 - 2003 . the flawed rule of 2012 could allow the candidates , failed in aggregate but pass in both compulsory and optional , to appear in interview . but this never happened because people never bothered to interpret rules .

now in 2013 fpsc suddenly woke up, changed the flawed rule and replaced it with an even tougher one .they also implemented it this time which shocked the candidates .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Asma Jilani ---- Vs---- Govt. of the Punjab	sajidnuml	Constitutional Law	5	Saturday, November 11, 2017 06:00 PM
Observations on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2009	Last Island	Subject Analysis	3	Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:44 AM
Observations on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2007	Last Island	Subject Analysis	15	Tuesday, February 16, 2010 03:51 AM
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)	Muhammad Adnan	General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests	0	Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:50 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to Nate For This Useful Post:
izhar ahmad (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to umarabbas For This Useful Post:
Nate (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tashfeen Alam For This Useful Post:
Faisal86 (Tuesday, November 26, 2013), Nate (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to Tashfeen Alam For This Useful Post:
Nate (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to mahmood For This Useful Post:
Nate (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)

The Following User Says Thank You to Nate For This Useful Post:
Despicable (Thursday, November 28, 2013)