Borderline Measurements and a Disputed Stopwatch at the PMT/PET Camp
At the recruitment ground in Cuttack, 240 candidates are being measured and timed. The eligibility table displayed at the camp - the operating rule for this case - sets male height at 168.0 cm (163.0 cm for SC/ST), female height at 155.0 cm (150.0 cm for SC/ST), minimum chest expansion 5.0 cm, and a 1.6 km run to be completed in 6 minutes (6 minutes 30 seconds for women).
Candidate 12 (male, general) measures 167.6 cm at 8:10 a.m. in canvas shoes and 168.1 cm at 9:40 a.m. barefoot; his caste certificate has not arrived. Candidate 37's 1.6 km run is timed at 6 minutes 04 seconds, but her group's stopwatch was started on a whistle that the last row could not hear. Candidate 58 records 4.5 cm chest expansion. The observer's signature is needed on every entry, and results must reach the commission the same evening.
1. What do you record for Candidate 12, and on what reasoning? Deal with the caste certificate separately.
Read the worked answer
The two readings are not two chances; they are evidence of a measurement problem. A 0.5 cm spread within 90 minutes on the same candidate points to technique and equipment, not to a body that grew. Note also that the shoes reading is the lower one - so the usual worry (footwear inflating height) is not what happened here.
Action: take a third measurement under full protocol - barefoot, heels together, back against a wall-mounted stadiometer, head in the Frankfurt plane, measured at the same session by a different official, with the observer present. Record that reading as final in the remarks column, along with both earlier readings and the time of each.
Why not simply accept 168.1 cm: the candidate must not be seen to shop for the favourable number, and equally must not lose out to a sloppy first attempt. One protocol measurement, witnessed and signed, is the only figure that survives an appeal either way.
Caste certificate, kept separate: the pending certificate does not change today's measurement. Record him against the general standard, mark the entry “provisional - category certificate awaited”, and let the document verification stage decide the category. If the certificate is produced and accepted, his 168.1 cm clears the 163.0 cm SC/ST mark comfortably. Do not pre-empt that decision at the measuring stand.
2. Candidate 37 finished in 6 minutes 04 seconds in a heat where the starter's whistle was inaudible to the back row. What is a fair and defensible response?
Read the worked answer
The error is systematic, not personal. If the last row heard the whistle late, every runner in that row ran a longer effective race than the stopwatch records. Candidate 37 is simply the one whose time fell closest to the 6:30 limit, so the error surfaced through her.
Fair response: re-run the whole affected heat with a visible starter's signal (flag or arm drop) plus an audible whistle, two independent stopwatches, and a bib-finish recording. Announce the re-run to every candidate in that heat, not only to the one who complained. Runners may keep the better of the two times if the rules of the notification allow a re-run at all - that must be checked against the notice, not invented at the ground.
What I would refuse: subtracting an estimated three seconds, or any other guessed correction. There is no measurement behind it, it cannot be applied consistently, and it hands an advantage to whoever argues hardest.
Record on the sheet: original time, reason for re-run, re-run time, both timers' initials, observer's signature. If no re-run is possible before results are due, mark the candidate's time as disputed and refer it to the commission rather than quietly passing or failing her - 6:04 against a 6:30 limit is not a case where a guess is safe.
3. Candidate 58 shows 4.5 cm chest expansion against a 5.0 cm minimum. Set out the correct handling, and then state the one rule that governs all three cases on this ground.
Read the worked answer
Candidate 58: re-measure once, by a second official, with the tape at the same level front and back, arms raised for the full-inhalation reading and lowered for the full-exhalation reading, and the difference recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. If the second reading is still below 5.0 cm, record “not qualified on chest expansion”, inform the candidate in writing the same day, and state the appeal route. Do not average the two readings, and do not round 4.5 up to 5.0 - a qualifying standard is a threshold, not a target.
The governing rule across all three candidates: the standard is applied to one properly conducted, witnessed measurement, recorded in writing with the raw readings, and never to the best of several attempts or to an estimate. That single rule covers Candidate 12's two heights, Candidate 37's stopwatch and Candidate 58's chest, and it is what makes the sheet survive scrutiny.
Supporting discipline for the evening's submission: every entry carries the observer's signature before the candidate leaves the ground; corrections are struck through and initialled, never overwritten; and the results go to the commission as they stand. Nothing is held back to help a candidate, and nothing is accelerated to finish early - the physical tests are qualifying, and the integrity of the sheet is the only thing the camp actually produces.