Civil Services Examination

There is a renewed academic and administrative focus on the structural evolution of the Civil Services Examination (CSE), particularly its preliminary stage. The transformation of the examination—from the colonial Macaulay model to the post-independence Kothari recommendations and further reforms through committees like S.K. Khanna (2010) and Arun Nigvekar (2012)—continues to evoke debates around transparency, equity, and meritocracy.

Civil Services Examination in India: Evolution, Reforms, and Challenges

Historical Evolution of the CSE Structure

• Macaulay Report (1854)
  • Recommended a merit-based selection process for the Indian Civil Services.
  • Emphasized testing literary and academic talent over patronage and aristocratic privilege.
  • Introduced written examinations initially held only in London.
• Kothari Committee Recommendations (1975)
  • Suggested the modern three-stage process:
    • Preliminary Examination (Objective-type)
    • Mains Examination (Descriptive-type)
    • Personality Test (Interview)
  • The goal was to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of candidates’ intellectual, analytical, and personality traits.

Reform through RTI and Judicial Scrutiny

• After the Right to Information Act, 2005, aspirants demanded greater transparency in marking and selection.
• The UPSC was compelled to disclose methodologies, triggering judicial scrutiny.
• In response, the K. Khanna Committee (2010) was formed to review the examination structure.

Structural Transformation: The 2011 Reforms

• Optional paper in prelims was abolished.
• Two compulsory papers introduced:
  • Paper I (General Studies): Covered Indian Polity, History, Economy, Geography, etc.
  • Paper II (CSAT): Focused on quantitative aptitude, logical reasoning, and comprehension.

CSAT Controversy and Corrective Measures

• Civil society groups and aspirants from rural and non-English backgrounds protested.
• In 2015, the government declared CSAT (Paper II) as qualifying only, requiring 33% marks.
• This reform restored greater weight to General Studies, viewed as more equitable.

Further Rationalization: Arun Nigvekar Committee (2012)

• Aimed to simplify and standardize the exam further.
• Recommended broadening of General Studies syllabus.
• Led to the current structure of four GS papers in Mains,

Continuing Challenges and Structural Distortions

• Linguistic Inequality: Despite reforms, translation issues and comprehension challenges persist for vernacular candidates.
• Urban Bias: English-medium candidates retain an edge in Paper II and interview phases.
• Opaque Evaluation: No re-evaluation or disclosure of Mains answer sheets despite RTI pressures.
• High Dependence on Coaching: Rising syllabus complexity increases coaching dependency, deepening socio-economic inequality.

Way Forward

• Equity in Language Access: Improve translation quality and accessibility for regional languages.
• Transparent Evaluation: Introduce optional rechecking and publish model answers post-evaluation.
• Dynamic Curriculum Updates: Periodically revise syllabus to reflect real-time governance, technology, and international affairs.
• Ethical and Inclusive Assessment: Include more scenario-based and ethical reasoning in both Prelims and Mains.