Does the civil services examination need reform? | Explained Premium

The evolution of the civil services examination format from 1854 to present day, with recommendations for future improvements.

The foundations of the present format of the civil services examination can be traced to the Macaulay Report of 1854 which introduced selection by merit and designed an examination on the principle of ‘transferability of academic talent to administration’. After Independence, the Kothari Committee (1975) recommended a three-tier examination comprising a preliminary exam, a descriptive main examination and an interview.

The preliminary exam comprised of an optional subject and a common general studies paper with a weightage of 2:1 respectively. After the preliminary exam, only the names of the shortlisted aspirants for the main examination were released by the UPSC. The question paper, the marks scored by the aspirants, and the minimum qualifying mark were kept classified and not made public. For many years this ‘black box’ nature of the preliminary exams ensured its smooth conduct as there was no ‘locus standi’ for an aspirant to question the result.

In 2005, with the passing of the Right to Information Act, aspirants flooded the UPSC with queries regarding the rationale of the exams and the UPSC had to disclose its methods which were raised for judicial scrutiny. To resolve this issue, the government appointed the S. K. Khanna Committee in 2010. In 2011, based on its recommendations, the optional paper was replaced with a common paper and the preliminary examination was reconstituted to comprise two papers — Paper-I , covering all conventional areas in General Studies, and Paper-II comprising questions on quantitative aptitude, reasoning and English comprehension. However, this format favoured students from urban centres with a good foundation in English. As only the combined score of Paper- I and Paper-II were taken, they could qualify at the prelims even though they scored relatively less in Paper-I. This led to more protests and consequently the government made Paper-II a qualifying paper and the marks were not added to determine merit. The preliminary exam continues in the same format.

In 2012, the Government appointed the Arun Nigverkar Committee to suggest a new model. The Committee made many recommendations with the aim of making the exams a less cumbersome process. The accepted changes were incorporated from 2013. The new scheme comprised restructured papers in General Studies covering diverse areas like Indian Polity, Governance, Economy, Science and Technology etc. The scheme continues to date. However, there are still distortions that must be addressed. First, the preliminary examination, which was designed to select the most deserving, has now become a ‘jealous gatekeeper’ with the sole objective of reducing over five lakh aspirants to around 10,000. Paper-II, which is a qualifying paper, favours students with a background in Sciences and Engineering and is a challenge for Humanities students. Paper-I, which comprises questions that test knowledge in areas that are needed for a career in the administrative services has become increasingly unpredictable. Due to this an aspirant who appears for the exam with a genuine desire to serve the country and is devoting his prime time to prepare for the same, incurs a huge opportunity cost.

The main examination also needs a few changes. The General studies papers have 20 short answer questions and feedback from aspirants indicates that marks are being awarded for factual points than analyses. There are no ‘long form questions’ which test the much required analytical skills of the future civil servant. Also, the Annual reports of the UPSC indicate that majority of the aspirants select optionals that are more scoring than their own domain. This aberration needs to be corrected, and the optional may be replaced by common papers which are appropriate for a career in administration like Governance and Policy.

Additionally, as the social background of the selected aspirants is reflective of the much needed inclusivity for achieving the goal of a representative bureaucracy, the upper age limit and the limit on number of attempts to crack the exam may be retained till 2030 and then appropriate changes be made. 

It is high time that the exam scheme is revisited.