Five evaluators suspended for gross errors in evaluation of SSC Public Examination answer scripts in Andhra Pradesh
The Directorate of Government Examinations in Andhra Pradesh has suspended five evaluators for gross errors in evaluation of SSC Public Examination-2025 answer scripts.
The Department has received a record number of 66,363 applications (scripts) from 34,709 students, out of the total 6,14,459 students who appeared for the examination. Of them, 64,251 are for reverification and 2,112 for recounting. In the wake of the serious errors, the government also proposes to modify the OMR design, starting from SSC 2026 to minimise counting errors.
A statement issued by the Department said all the applications will be disposed of by the first week of June. Many students who aspire for admissions in the IIITs run by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (RGUKT), Andhra Pradesh, have missed the deadline, as the RGUKT admission notice was issued on April 24, 2025, with the application window closing on May 20, 2025. Since the re-evaluation results will be finalised by June 1, many students with revised higher marks are likely to miss the deadline.
To ensure justice to them, the Department proposes to formally request RGUKT to open a special reapplication window from June 5 to June 10, 2025 to allow eligible student to reapply with corrected marks sheets.
The issues detected in the revaluation round include instances where one or more columns may have been overlooked during calculation of total marks, occasional errors in transferring awarded marks accurately to the OMR sheets and some scripts containing responses that were either left unmarked or inadvertently awarded zero. The existing three-tier supervision mechanism did not fully detect or prevent these inconsistencies, thus contributing to the errors.
A total number of 45,96,527 SSC answer scripts were evaluated this year by 16,482 Assistant Examiners, 5,494 Special Assistants and 2,747 Chief Examiners, 40 scripts per day per Assistant Examiner.
Under recounting process, for which a fee of ₹500 is collected, the examiner verifies whether the marks awarded for each question in the answer script are accurately transcribed onto the corresponding OMR sheet and all marks recorded on the OMR sheet are totalled and cross-verified against the marks awarded in the script.
If any awarded mark is missing on the OMR sheet, the examiner enters the missing mark appropriately and in case of discrepancies in the total, the examiner is authorised to correct the total marks on the OMR sheet and record the accurate marks.
Under reverification (Fee: ₹1,000), the examiner verifies the answer script and may award or modify marks if no marks are awarded to a correct answer, if zero marks are awarded to a correct answer or if any error is observed in counting or tallying the total marks.
No photocopy is provided to the candidate under recounting, while under reverification, a photocopy of the evaluated script is uploaded to the candidate's portal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Calcutta HC allows pleas challenging WBSSC teacher recruitment notification
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (June 3, 2025) granted permission to file pleas challenging the West Bengal government's notification on this year's teacher recruitment process. These pleas are expected to be heard by a vacation Bench of the court later this week. On May 30, the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) and the State Education Department issued a notification for the State Level Selection Test (SLST) for the recruitment of assistant teachers for classes 9 to 12 in government-run and government-aided schools. Concurrently, the State government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking modifications to the top court's April 3 order. The Supreme Court had cancelled nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching appointments made through the 2016 recruitment process, calling it 'vitiated and tainted'. On April 17, the top court directed that fresh recruitment be initiated by May 31 and completed by December 31. While many among the affected group of sacked teachers have reiterated their demand to be exempted from the new process, a section of waitlisted candidates from the 2016 panel have moved the Calcutta High Court against the 2025 notification itself. A large section of the protestors and litigants who had earlier challenged the 2016 appointments had claimed that, despite clearing the examination, they were denied jobs due to irregularities in the selection process. The current petitioners, who identify themselves as among those deprived, have argued that the latest recruitment guidelines violate the Supreme Court's directives. In particular, they have objected to provisions in the notification that appear to favour sacked teachers — such as the allocation of an additional 10 marks for prior teaching experience. Notably, no such provision existed in the 2016 recruitment. The Supreme Court, in its April 17 order, had clarified: 'We clarify that this order shall not be read as conferring any special right or advantage on the aforesaid teachers, insofar as the fresh recruitment process is concerned.' Suvojit Das, a teacher whose appointment from the 2016 panel was cancelled but who maintains he was untainted, told The Hindu that the current recruitment notification does not particularly benefit any category of affected candidates, whether sacked or waitlisted. He claimed that the sacked teachers are unwilling to participate in fresh recruitment. 'In the most unfortunate case where we are forced to partake in recruitments, we should not be made to compete with the entire pool of candidates this year. We should only compete for the number of declared vacancies of 2016 for which we had originally applied,' he said. 'Moreover, in that case, the untainted appointees of 2016 who might not clear the SLST this year should also receive some benefit from the government,' Mr. Das added. He further argued that a re-evaluation of the 2016 OMR sheets could help distinguish meritorious candidates — whether waitlisted or sacked — from those who were part of the tainted process. Meanwhile, the Detective Department of the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate on Tuesday issued summons to two protesting teachers, Amit Ranjan Bhuiyan and Mehebub Mondal, for questioning.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Concerns rise over massive yoga day event amidst surge in COVID-19 cases
As the State gears up for Yogandhra-2025, marking International Yoga Day on June 21, concerns are being raised about the timing of the mega event in view of the rising Covid-19 cases. The massive event proposed to be held on a 20-km stretch along the Beach Road in Visakhapatnam, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi scheduled to attend, is expected to draw over 5 lakh participants. The State government has also announced plans to mobilise thousands of participants for the event. While the current rise in COVID-19 cases is not considered alarming, health experts warn that mass gatherings without proper precautions like wearing masks, maintaining physical distance between participants, and lack of hygiene could lead to a spike in cases. A doctor said: 'Though the present strains of the virus, which are variants of omicron, are not causing severe illness or death, one cannot rule out the long-term effects of the virus. Patients may develop health issues at a later stage in their life.' Recently, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) three-day 'Mahanadu' meeting in Kadapa saw thousands of party leaders and workers attend the event without wearing masks. Ironically, the State government had earlier issued an advisory asking people not to participate in large gatherings, religious congregations, and party meetings. However, it withdrew the advisory ahead of the Mahanadu. Praja Arogya Vedika (PAV) general secretary T. Kameswara Rao and its president MV Ramaniah expressed concern over the planned mega Yoga Day event on June 21. In a letter to Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu on Tuesday, they warned that mobilising 2 lakh participants across 20-km, poses a risk of becoming a COVID-19 'super-spreader event', especially given the rise of active cases in Visakhapatnam and across the country. Dr. K. Rambabu, Director of Visakha Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS), told The Hindu: 'Most people have developed herd immunity either due to previous infection or vaccination. The chance of infection is low. However, those with co-morbid conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and kidney disease should take extra precautions.' He added that yoga is unlikely to pose a risk as participants would be performing asanas on mats at a safe distance.'
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Muslim Personal Law Board will not make Waqf Act an election issue but will take a call to intensify protests
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has been organising demonstrations to protest against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 in several parts of the country, including in Hyderabad, for several weeks. The Board has sought to include women, and people belonging to other faiths in the protests, even as its president Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, in an exclusive interview with Syed Mohammed, asserts that their struggle is not against Hindus, but against the government which is trying to wrest lands and properties from the control of Muslims. Edited excerpts from an interview: Q: What are your key contentions against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025? It is our belief that the law was brought to grab the properties of Muslims. The law makes waqf properties vulnerable. The concept of waqf by user —meaning properties that have been historically used as mosques, dargahs, graveyards or madrasas — that are being used for a specific purpose, even if no documents are available, they will be considered waqf. Religious structures often predate documentation. For example, Delhi's Jama Masjid and Hyderabad's Mecca Masjid were built centuries ago. If masjid committees are now expected to produce ownership documents, it sets an impossible standard. As regards claims by the government, we believe they have a habit of lying. They can claim any land parcel. Most waqf cases are against the government. So, all waqf cases that are against the government will become disputed. Similarly, disputes were created over other Muslim places of worship, and to create them one does not need evidence. Second, the amendment says that any waqf property under the custody of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will no longer be considered waqf. Many historic mosques that serve both religious and public, as sites of tourism, interests may now function only at the government's discretion, depending on whether and at what frequency they permit namaz (prayers). Thirdly, the law seeks to dilute protection under the law of limitation. Thousands of acres will stand risk of exclusion from waqf (due to adverse possession). Many land parcels are in unauthorised possession of the government, of Hindus and even Muslims. Given the BJP's usual firmness in passing laws, how do you plan to engage the public? Demonstrations such as 'lights off' and 'human chain' were largely symbolic. Will future protests take a different form? It's true that the BJP rarely backtracks. It believes in dictatorship. It does not listen to the public. As seen with the farm laws, these were withdrawn after several farmers died. The AIMPLB's protests will be within the bounds of law. They will be peaceful. Our fight is not against our Hindu brothers but against this government. If the government remains indifferent, our working committee will decide the next course. Whether it is courting arrest, a jail bharo movement, or peaceful roadblocks. We're encouraged by the support of many Hindu brothers, and civil rights groups who stand with us. Q: The BJP claims this law will ensure transparency and empower Muslim women. How do you respond to these claims? We say that let there be a public debate. Let the Prime Minister or Home Minister attend. We'll welcome them. If that's not possible, send the Law or Minority Affairs Minister to sit with an AIMPLB delegation. Let them explain how this law benefits Muslims, women, or Pasmandas. They won't be able to. They claim Pasmandas are being denied rights. Are they not praying in masjids, which are waqf? In Islam, all Muslims are equal. Q: But caste-based discrimination among Muslims, as is the case with Pasmandas, has been studied and documented. Those who are victims of discrimination know what they've been through. Yes, there are two aspects — economic and social. Economically, Muslims are among the most backward, as various government-appointed commissions have found. Socially, some refer to Ashraf, Ajlaf, and Arzal. But these words are not found in any Islamic texts on jurisprudence. In Islam, a Syed girl can marry a non-Syed man, and no aalim will declare the nikah invalid. If the imam of a masjid is an Ansari, whom some may look down upon, but we do not, a Syed will still pray behind him. It is possible that these negative practices have entered the Muslim community on account of shared experiences, or influences from others. But Islam rejects caste. We look at it as a social evil. Q: The government has contended in courts of law, including in the case of waqf, that of 'essential religious' practice. The government is presenting this in a wrong manner. Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) should not be interpreted by the government. The opinion of those who are experts of fiqh should be taken. Essential religious practice encompasses all that is proved by Quran and hadith (tradition of Prophet Muhammad). What ramification will Act have, especially when it comes to States that are soon going for elections as is the case with Bihar? AIMPLB does not have anything to do with politics. We neither support, or oppose any party. We will not make this an election issue.. As regards one party supporting (the then Bill), or another opposing it, it is unfortunate many political leaders do not have a conscience. The AIMPLB has stressed on unity among faiths as regards demonstrations, and called upon varied groups to fight against the Act. If you see, a Jain temple was demolished recently in Mumbai. Secondly Buddhists in Bodh Gaya have been demonstrating. They want members of their own faiths in the management. The problem will exacerbate. It began with minorities, including Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs. In fact, I am certain that it will eventually affect Hindus as well.
