When Paper Setters Fail: The Price Aspirants Pay

“When we make even a small mistake in the exam, we lose marks. Sometimes, just one mark decides everything — our dream job, our future, our entire life. But when those who set the paper make mistakes, nothing happens to them,” says Pavan Chaudhry, a government job aspirant. He adds “Paper settlers errors lead to court cases, delays in the process, and immense stress for us. They still have the freedom to play with our time and careers without any accountability. This is not just unfair — it’s heartbreaking”

This is not just Pavan’s concern — thousands of aspirants who take various exams conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) feel the same. Just last week, GPSC canceled the exam for Deputy Director of Agriculture, Class-1 because most of the questions were taken from only two books! GPSC in its official press release said so.

In an official statement, GPSC said: The Deputy Director of Agriculture / District Agriculture Officer, Class-1 exam (№122/2024–25) held on 27.05.2025 is canceled. Candidates reported that most questions were from two specific books, which was confirmed after review. To ensure fair chances for all candidates, the exam is canceled. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Class-2 exam (№121/2024–25), scheduled for 31.05.2025, is also postponed. Since it follows the same syllabus, postponement will give all candidates equal preparation opportunities.

This is not the first time candidates have suffered due to mistakes made by paper setters. Such problems are common in many GPSC exams. For example, in exam number 20/2022–23 for GAS and GCS Class 1–2, the preliminary exam based on OMR sheets. GPSC scanned the answer sheets within 1–2 days, and computers checked the papers. Yet, it still took 268 days to declare the results. The delay was caused by errors made by the paper setters.

For this exam, the “provisional answer key” was released on 11–01–2023, the “final answer key” on 10–04–2023, and a “final final answer key” on 29–09–2023. The exam had 400 questions. In “Final final key” GPSC canceled 14 questions completely and changed answers for 22 questions. In total, 36 changes were made in 400, which is about 9%. As Pavan said, paper setters face no penalty when they fail, and the candidates have to bear the burden.

The most ironic part is that the aspirants have to pay fees to the commission to prove that they have the correct answers, not the paper setters. To understand this, you have to understand the process.

In the prelims exam, paper setters submit the questions and answers to GPSC. After the exam, GPSC releases a provisional answer key. Aspirants can challenge this answer key by submitting their own answers. GPSC then reviews these challenges and publishes the final answer key. The papers are marked based on this final answer key. But recently, GPSC started charging candidates ₹100 to challenge the provisional answer key! This means aspirants take the exam, then have to create the correct answer key themselves- and also have to pay for it too!

Meanwhile, the paper setters who make these mistakes continue to be well-paid. An RTI reply from GPSC revealed that they pay ₹100 to ₹150 per question and use a question bank to prepare exams. To select 200 questions with answers, GPSC spends about ₹25,000 per paper — ₹50,000 for both papers in one exam. Overall, GPSC spends between ₹90,000 and ₹1,10,000 to prepare 400 questions and answers for a single exam of Class 1–2. Yet, even when errors are found, there is no accountability for the paper setters.

In my RTI dated 27 July 2024, I had asked for details about any penalties imposed on paper setters for their mistakes, but GPSC did not respond. The second appeal is currently pending with the Gujarat Information Commission.

Furthermore, these days the background of GPSC interviewers has come under scrutiny. Vipul Chaudhary, a young man from a small village in Patan district, recently secured an impressive 348th rank in the UPSC exam. Earlier, in a GPSC interview, he was given just 20 out of 100 marks — a score that drew criticism at the time. Now, his success in one of the country’s toughest exams raises a serious question: Who got it right — GPSC or UPSC?

BJP leader Haribhai Chaudhary has accused the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) of bias and injustice in the oral interview process. In a strong statement, he said, “The boy who failed by giving low marks in the GPSC interview has passed UPSC with flying colors. The government should be ashamed.”

Haribhai Chaudhary, in his letter to the Chief Minister, has directly raised questions on GPSC Chairman Hasmukh Patel. He alleged that Patel, despite his reputation for honesty, is responsible for favoritism towards certain communities during the interview process.

In another case, GPSC had to cancel interviews for the post of Drug Inspector after concerns were raised about a potential conflict of interest. One of the interview panel experts had conducted mock interviews at Sardardham before the actual GPSC process. This raised doubts about the fairness and neutrality of the interview process, prompting GPSC Chairman Hasmukh Patel to announce the cancellation via a tweet.

To Prevent such fiasco in future, GPSC introduced a new rule for the interviewees. Now, all panel members will be required to submit a written declaration in advance regarding any prior involvement with candidates or related training activities. This is a good step in the right direction but not enough.

When the future of thousands is decided by just a few people — paper setters and interviewers- it’s not just important, it’s essential that their qualifications and experience be made public. In my second RTI appeal dated 29/0/2024 , after GPSC refused to share details about the paper setters’ qualifications, I argued in my submission to the Gujarat Information Commission : What if someone who failed 10th grade is assigned to set the exam for Class 1 officer posts?

When Supreme Court judges disclose their assets, when IAS and IPS officers must declare their assets every year, and when election candidates are required to reveal their education, income, and assets — then why should the qualifications and experience of paper setters be kept hidden?

Further, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act states that if public interest outweighs privacy concerns, the Public Information Officer (PIO) must share the information. In this case, public interest is clear — the future of thousands of exam aspirants depends directly on the qualifications and experience of those setting the papers.