Interview call calculation after duplicate applications and misplaced attendance sheets
An exam cell has 120 posts for a state recruitment test. It received 20,000 applications. Attendance in the written test was 75% of applicants. Of those who appeared, 2% cleared the written test. The commission's rule is to call three candidates per post for interview, but if the number of qualified candidates is less than three times the posts, all qualified candidates are called. The cell initially computed the number of interview calls and sent a note. Later, a data-entry audit found that 1,000 applications had been counted twice. The audit also found that 4 qualified candidates had been marked absent because their attendance sheets were misplaced; their scripts were evaluated and they are qualified. The exam controller must revise the note before the cutoff is published. The commission also wants to know whether the interview ratio of 1:3 is still met after the corrections, and what percentage of the original call figure the revised figure represents.
1. Calculate the initial number of candidates called for interview and the revised number after the audit. Show each step and the calls-per-post ratio in both cases.
Read the worked answer
Initial: applications = 20,000; appeared = 0.75 × 20,000 = 15,000; qualified = 0.02 × 15,000 = 300. The 1:3 benchmark would require 3 × 120 = 360. Since 300 < 360, the rule says call all qualified candidates: 300 calls. Ratio = 300 / 120 = 2.5 per post.
Revised: applications = 20,000 − 1,000 = 19,000; appeared = 0.75 × 19,000 = 14,250; qualified = 0.02 × 14,250 = 285; add 4 candidates whose attendance sheets were misplaced = 289 calls. Ratio = 289 / 120 = 2.4083…, about 2.41 per post. The revised figure is 289 / 300 = 96.33% of the original call figure, a reduction of 11 calls (3.67%).
2. The controller wants to reach the 1:3 ratio. Should the cell lower the qualifying cutoff to call 360 candidates? Advise with reference to the rule and to legal risk.
Read the worked answer
No, not automatically. The 1:3 rule is a benchmark or ceiling: call three per post if at least that many qualify; if fewer qualify, call all qualified. Lowering the cutoff after the result to manufacture 360 calls changes the selection standard without a notified policy. It is vulnerable to challenge both by candidates who would have qualified under the original cutoff but were not called, and by candidates who did not qualify.
The lawful options are: (a) call all 289 and document the shortfall; (b) if the commission has a specific provision for a supplementary list or for relaxing the cutoff in advertised reserved categories, follow that provision by a written order and publish it; (c) carry forward unfilled posts only if the recruitment rules permit. The note should state the shortfall of 71 calls against the benchmark and the reason, rather than presenting 1:3 as a guarantee of 360 interviews.
3. One of the four late-qualified candidates is found ineligible for not meeting the age criterion. Recompute the calls and the ratio, and state whether the 1:3 benchmark is met.
Read the worked answer
Late-qualified candidates become 3, so revised qualified = 285 + 3 = 288. Calls = 288 because the figure is still below 360. Ratio = 288 / 120 = 2.4 per post. The 1:3 benchmark is not met; the shortfall is 360 − 288 = 72 calls.
The cell must remove the ineligible candidate from the list before publishing. If the ineligibility is discovered after the call letter is issued, withdraw the call letter by a written order and keep the candidate's representation on record. Do not retain the candidate to reach a round number.