Leak allegation ninety minutes before the paper
You are the Assistant Controller on duty at a screening centre. At 07:30, ninety minutes before the start, the media cell forwards a WhatsApp voice note circulating in a 400-member candidate group. It claims 18 English questions have leaked and attaches a photograph of a printed page showing six questions with option keys. About 2,600 candidates are outside; the first 300 have already been seated and handed question papers, because packets were opened at 07:15 to save time. The strong room holds 30 sealed packets, each with 90 papers and a printed serial, plus one reserve packet of a different question set (Set B) containing 90 papers. The packets are sealed with serial-numbered tape, and the strong room log shows no entry since Friday. Two television crews are at the gate. A political agent has telephoned asking for 'cooperation' because a relative is a candidate.
1. What do you do in the first thirty minutes? Give the sequence and the reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Sequence by irreversibility. First, freeze collection of the 300 seated candidates' papers and stop any further packet opening at every hall; a paper that is out can still be exchanged, a paper that is answered cannot. Second, verify rather than believe: open one sealed packet in the presence of two witnesses, compare the photographed six questions and keys to the actual paper, photograph the packet serial and the seal, and record the time in the centre log. Third, telephone the Controller and put the finding, not the rumour, on record.
If the photograph does not match, proceed on schedule and announce that the paper is verified, without naming candidates. If it matches, the set is compromised: withdraw all 300 distributed papers and delay the start while you decide between replacing the English section from Set B or postponing. The reasoning throughout is that verification is cheap and fast, whereas an unverified cancellation or an unverified go-ahead are both damaging and irreversible.
2. The photograph matches. You have 2,600 candidates and 90 reserve papers. What now?
Read the worked answer
Ninety papers cannot serve 2,600, so a whole-centre substitution of the paper is impossible. The realistic options are: (1) replace the leakable component - issue a printed erratum striking the 18 English questions and re-weight the paper out of the remaining items; (2) substitute the entire set with Set B for a limited number of rooms and accept unequal conditions, which I would reject; (3) postpone the sitting, with a fresh date and a fresh paper.
On balance I would take option (1) if the remaining paper stays psychometrically sound and the English weight can be preserved by scaling, because it protects the 2,600 who have travelled and removes the advantage the leaked 18 items would give. I would take option (3) if the leak appears to cover more than the English section, or if the erratum would distort the paper. In either case: count and re-seal every opened packet under two signatures, log the serials, take statements from the invigilators, and preserve the phone from which the photograph was received.
3. How do you handle the media and the political call, and what do you put in writing afterwards?
Read the worked answer
Media: give one factual statement at a fixed time from one named spokesperson - what has been verified, what action is being taken, and when the next update comes. Do not speculate on who leaked, do not show the photograph, and do not allow camera crews into the halls, because candidate identity is protected and a corridor interview invites pressure on individual invigilators.
Political call: stay polite, take the name, time and exact request, state that you have no discretion to alter procedure for any candidate, and refer the matter to the Controller. Log the call. Do not grant or imply any facility, and do not discuss it with the candidate concerned.
In writing afterwards: a same-day incident report with the timeline to the minute, the packet serials opened and by whom, the verification result, the decision and who approved it, the number of candidates affected, and the copies of the statements. Send the leak allegation to the Commission's vigilance cell with the original digital file, preserving metadata. The written record is what will decide whether this reads as a managed incident or a cover-up.