Prolonged delays, repeated examinations and questions over the various post raise concerns over transparency and procedural fairness
SRINAGAR, AUGUST 30 (TL): The recruitment process for several posts at the Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir (SKUAST-K) has come under increasing scrutiny, with growing demands from aspirants and observers for a review and, in some quarters, quashing of the entire selection process.
The controversy surrounds recruitment for posts including Print and Online Journalist, Media Producer & Editor, Cameraman, Digital Press Operator and Editor, advertised under various notifications and latest Notification No.s 07 of 2023 and 08 of 2023 dated May 10, 2023 and July 13, 2023.
Particular concern has been expressed over the recruitment for the post of Editor, where candidates underwent multiple stages of the selection process, including a written examination, document verification, skill assessment and interview, followed by an unusually prolonged wait for the declaration of the final result.
The interview for the Editor post was conducted on October 27, 2025, at the Directorate of Education, SKUAST-K, Main Campus, Shalimar. Despite the completion of the interview process, the result was not announced for several months, leaving candidates uncertain about their professional futures.
The delay has raised a fundamental question: Was the prolonged wait merely administrative inertia, or did it reflect deeper procedural concerns within the recruitment process?
According to accounts shared by candidates, the recruitment process witnessed repeated changes and re-scheduling even after candidates had cleared earlier stages. One such account was shared publicly by Nisar Ahmad Dharma, who described his experience and that of a friend who participated in the recruitment process.
According to Dharma, his friend was among eight candidates shortlisted for document verification in 2025 following the written examination. Of these, five candidates reportedly fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirements, while three could not produce the required experience certificates.
The candidates who cleared document verification subsequently expected the recruitment process to move towards its conclusion. However, according to the account, SKUAST-K subsequently announced another skill test in 2025 and invited a wider pool of applicants, including candidates who had reportedly been found ineligible during the earlier document-verification stage.
The decision has become a major point of contention among candidates, who question the rationale for reopening an earlier stage after eligibility had already been scrutinised.
Dharma has also alleged that candidates who had cleared the prescribed stages were placed in a difficult position because of the repeated changes. He stated that his friend had even declined other career opportunities while expecting the recruitment process to conclude.
The candidate subsequently appeared in the fresh skill test in early 2026 and, according to the account, qualified again and became eligible for the interview.
Meanwhile, allegations have surfaced on social media that the recruitment process was allegedly delayed or altered to accommodate particular “blue-eyed candidates.”
These allegations have not been independently verified.
One claim doing the rounds is that a preferred candidate was reportedly unable to join due to personal reasons, following which the final result for the Editor post was allegedly withheld.
The university’s position on these allegations could not be independently established at the time of publication.
However, the absence of a clear public explanation for the prolonged delay has intensified questions among aspirants regarding the transparency, consistency and fairness of the recruitment process.
In another social media post, Sheikh Saleem Bin Ahmad alleged that rules were being changed repeatedly during the recruitment process to allegedly accommodate a preferred candidate. He also questioned the repeated document-verification exercises and claimed that the recruitment process had become increasingly opaque. These claims are allegations and have not been independently verified.
The central concern raised by candidates is not merely the delay but the principle governing recruitment.
If eligibility has been scrutinised, candidates have cleared the written examination and subsequent stages, they argue, reopening the process for a substantially wider pool raises questions about the sanctity of stages that have already been completed.
Observers also point out that if the university considered a fresh skill test necessary, questions remain as to why candidates who had already cleared the earlier stages could not have been assessed through a clearly defined and uniformly applicable procedure.
The issue has consequently evolved beyond the fate of a single post. Candidates are now questioning whether recruitment rules can be modified after a selection process has already progressed substantially, and whether such changes can be introduced without compromising the principles of fairness and equal opportunity.
Growing demand for an independent review
The controversy has now triggered demands for a comprehensive review of the recruitment process. Some aspirants and observers have called for the quashing of the entire selection process and its fresh initiation under clearly defined, transparent and uniformly applicable rules.
They argue that any fresh recruitment should clearly specify eligibility requirements, selection criteria, skill-test parameters and the weightage assigned to each stage, leaving little or no scope for ambiguity or discretionary changes midway through the process.
For candidates who have spent years waiting for the conclusion of recruitment exercises, the issue is not simply about securing a job. It is about whether a public institution can provide a predictable, transparent and merit-based pathway to employment.
The controversy also highlights the larger question of public confidence in recruitment institutions: When candidates invest years in examinations, document verification and interviews, who is accountable when the rules or timelines appear to change along the way?
Unless SKUAST-K provides a clear explanation regarding the repeated changes, prolonged delays and the basis on which the recruitment process was conducted, questions surrounding the process are likely to persist.
The university’s response to the allegations and demands for cancellation and re-initiation of the recruitment process would be crucial in determining whether the concerns raised by candidates can be satisfactorily addressed.
