Merit Murdered, Justice Denied- A Wake-Up Call 

The recently declared results of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS) examination for the Animal/Sheep Husbandry Department in Jammu and Kashmir have triggered widespread disappointment and deep concern within the student community. This is not an isolated case of administrative irregularity, it is a structured injustice that strikes at the heart of India’s constitutional vision, merit-based aspirations, and the dignity of the youth. This article presents a multi-dimensional critique of the examination process, touching on statistical, legal, scientific, regional, social, and psychological aspects of what many are calling a betrayal of merit.

Statistical Disparity and Structural Inequity

Out of the 176 posts advertised, only 71 were designated as Open Merit (OM). However, even within those, only 55 were allotted to candidates from the General Category, effectively reducing their share to just over 31 percent of the total posts. Meanwhile, 105 seats, nearly 60 percent, were allocated under various reserved categories, in violation of the 50 percent ceiling laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) judgment.

The selection probability for a General Category candidate stood at a mere 8.1 percent, while reserved category candidates faced significantly less competition. More alarming, perhaps, are the cut-off disparities: OM candidates needed a minimum of 70.5 marks to qualify, while ST and SC candidates qualified with just 44.25 marks, and EWS with as low as 36. Such differences yield a Normalized Disparity Index (NDI) of up to 49 percent, clear evidence of disproportionate treatment that undermines the principle of fair competition.

Legal and Constitutional Framework Violated

This selection process contravenes both the letter and the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrary state action. For a classification system to be constitutional, it must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational link to its purpose. Here, neither is evident.

Article 16 promises equality of opportunity in public employment. While the Constitution allows for affirmative action, it also expects the state to maintain administrative efficiency and uphold merit. The M. Nagaraj judgment (2006) clarified that any reservation policy must be backed by quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequate representation, and impact on governance. The present system, where reserved seats are over-allocated and under-filled, and where merit is marginalized, fails these legal tests.

Scientific and Logical Inconsistency

In any rational or scientific system, there must be a direct relationship between input and outcome, between effort and reward. This examination process demonstrates the opposite: candidates with higher scores are being excluded, while lower scores are being rewarded through relaxed eligibility criteria. This inverse relationship violates every basic rule of fairness and efficiency. If performance metrics are ignored in favor of static quotas, the credibility of our institutions will deteriorate over time.

Regional Disparity and Emerging Divides

A particularly troubling aspect of the result is the glaring regional imbalance. While candidates from Kashmir formed 78 percent of the top scorers under Open Merit, only 21 percent of the reserved seats were awarded to Kashmir-based aspirants. Jammu, by contrast, secured 79 percent of reserved seats despite lower overall performance in merit-based evaluation. This reflects an unjust distribution of opportunity and threatens to intensify existing regional disparities, fostering alienation and mistrust between communities that need to be united, not divided.

Social Consequences of a Broken System

The societal cost of this injustice is significant. When hard-working, high-scoring students find themselves denied due recognition and opportunity, the message sent is clear: identity matters more than ability. This damages not only individuals but also the social fabric at large. Policies that were originally intended to level the playing field are now perceived as tools of reverse discrimination, breeding resentment rather than reconciliation.

For many students, especially those from economically weaker yet non-reserved backgrounds, the dream of upward mobility through public service exams is rapidly fading. When merit is consistently side-lined, youth begin to disengage from civic life, believing that the system is rigged and indifferent to their aspirations.

Psychological Fallout and Mental Health Crisis

This disillusionment is not just theoretical, it has real psychological consequences. Young people who dedicate years to exam preparation, often in isolating and high-pressure environments, are increasingly reporting symptoms of anxiety, depression, and self-doubt. When performance no longer leads to progress, a sense of helplessness sets in. Families who have invested heavily, emotionally and financially, into their children’s education feel betrayed.

In regions like Kashmir, where educational and psychological resources are already limited, this kind of systemic neglect worsens existing mental health challenges. The damage is invisible, but devastating.

The Voice of the Student Community

The student community across Jammu and Kashmir, and indeed across India, is not asking for privilege. We are demanding fairness. We do not oppose the upliftment of the underprivileged; we oppose the deliberate exclusion of the deserving. We stand not against reservation, but against its misuse. We want equity, not entitlement. We want competition, not consolation. We want a future built on hard work not heritage.

Our Demands

1. An immediate and independent audit of the VAS selection process by a neutral constitutional authority.

2. A review of the reservation policy to ensure it is in line with constitutional limits and based on real, updated data.

3. A merit-normalization framework that ensures proportional and percentile-based cut-offs across categories.

4. Equal application fees for all candidates, eliminating economic discrimination in opportunity access.

5. Regional reservation allocation based on actual demographic and performance data to ensure fair representation.

Conclusion

This is not a routine protest. It is a collective alarm from thousands of young Indians who still believe in the power of the Constitution and the promise of merit. If this flawed system continues, it will not only destroy lives but also dismantle public trust in democratic institutions. Let this moment be a turning point where silence ends and reform begins. The student community will continue to speak, organize, and demand until fairness is restored. The future of India's youth cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political arithmetic.