Opinion | What Really Went Wrong With UPSC?

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is a constitutional body established under Article 315 of the Indian Constitution. It plays a crucial role in the recruitment of officers for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the Indian Police Service (IPS), and several other Group A and Group B services. It is India's premier central recruiting agency responsible for conducting examinations and selecting candidates for various civil services positions within the Indian government. In fact, the civil services exam is one of the most prestigious and challenging tests in the world. 

Notably, the other function of the UPSC includes giving advice on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to a deviant civil servant. In recent days, both the UPSC and the system of its recruitment have come under public criticism, thanks to incidents of abuse and misuse of quota by a few candidates. This has put into question the credibility of not only the examination process but also of the UPSC as an institution.

The UPSC examination system, pattern and process have often been called outdated. Going from preliminary exams to the final result of the interview round takes almost a year. The curriculum and exam pattern, which has remained unchanged for decades now, don't align with the needs of governance and public administration in today's world. Even the syllabus is criticised for not reflecting contemporary realities. This mismatch creates a gap between the skills required in today's world and what the examination actually tests.

Another significant criticism of the UPSC examination is its tendency to promote a culture of rote learning. The UPSC's heavy reliance on factual knowledge has led to the rise of "crammers", that is, candidates who excel in memorising information but may lack deeper understanding, critical thinking abilities, creativity and a spirit of innovation. This leads to the selection of individuals who are less suited to the dynamic and complex nature of public administration. If you are very good at cramming facts and vomiting them on page on the day of the exam, you have got yourself a qualification for the mains.

That's not all. The unpredictability of the UPSC exams, particularly the prelims test, adds to the stress and uncertainty faced by aspirants. Questions can vary widely in difficulty and scope, making it challenging for candidates to prepare effectively. This often benefits those who are better at guessing rather than those who possess a deep understanding of subjects.

Lack of transparency in the evaluation process is also a concern. Candidates have limited access to their answer sheets and don't know the rationale behind the scores they are awarded. This opacity fuels suspicion about the fairness of the evaluation process. 

Even though the selection process is rigorous, the UPSC has been criticised for failing to produce competent and effective officers consistently. The need for reform is evident. Changes should aim to foster creativity, transparency, and a genuine understanding of the complexities of public service, ensuring that the best and brightest are selected to serve the nation. Such reforms would include measures to assess practical skills, such as case studies, simulations, and problem-solving exercises. It is also suggested that candidates be given access to their answer sheets and a detailed breakdown of scores. This can include explanations for marks awarded, helping candidates understand their performance and identify areas that need improvement.

The current system also does not adequately assess candidates' personality traits and soft skills. Thus, there's a need to enhance the Personality Test (interview round) and include methods that can assess leadership qualities, emotional intelligence, and ethical decision-making. Dedicated sections on ethics, integrity, and governance in the examination and personality test can help promote a culture of ethical public service and ensure that the selected candidates have a strong moral compass. And, the interview board must include a jury comprising the common public too, as it is they who are the 'end-sufferers' in this system.

Systemically, the UPSC, though an independent constitutional body responsible for the recruitment of all central civil service. This should not be the case; the members must include representation from all services. As an extension of this, the marks awarded during training at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy Of Administration (LBSNAA) should also be considered so as to ascertain the suitability of a candidate for a particular job.

Finally, one of the most neglected duties of the UPSC - giving advice about the nature and quantum of punishment for a deviant civil servant - should be discharged in a timely manner. The UPSC is slow, tardy and status quoist in its approach. We need a faster, more transparent and clearer procedure so that erring bureaucrats are given appropriate punishments.

 It's time to revive the lost faith in this sacred institution.  

(The author is a Delhi-based columnist and commentator) 

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author