The rejoinder signed by PSC Deputy Secretary (administration) Moqbul Hossain claimed that the incidents of taking bribe from aspirant candidates of 27th BCS on behalf of the PSC top office bearer are imaginary, malicious, defamatory and provocative. The main claims made in the rejoinder are the following:

1) Marks of written exams are kept in the computer system in coded form and not provided to the members of the viva board.

2) The allegation of placing bribe-offering candidates' reports at certain viva board is totally baseless and false as the viva boards are formed according to the registration serial numbers of the candidates.

3) It is false that not a single viva candidate on October 12, 2006 and November 28, 2006 was successful and 64 candidates of November 12, 2006 viva board were offered job.

4) PSC authorities are surprised at The Daily Star allegation that as many as 64 successful candidates with roll numbers between 52001 - 54299 were selected under a "package deal".

5) The allegation that only nine out of 250 candidates were given pass marks on October 15, 2006 is also false.

6) It is false and fabricated that only two candidates were given pass marks on November 11 and given job in the foreign service because no viva was held on that day.

7) No candidate from Satkhira was selected for police service who appeared in viva voce on September 17, 2006.

OUR REPLY
Most leading newspapers including the Prothom Alo, Ittefaq, Jugantor, Shamokal, Amar Desh, Janakantha and The Daily Star had published reports on the irregularities of PSC, especially about leakage of question papers, which were widely available at different university dormitories. In spite of widespread media reporting and claims by examinees, the PSC held the 27th BCS examination.

Because of allegations, an intelligence agency investigated and found irregularities. Finally, the caretaker government postponed the medical test (that started on April 7) of the BCS candidates on April 18, proving the existence of serious irregularities.

Our reply to the points made in the rejoinder is as follows:

1) To prevent irregularity, the rejoinder claims that marks of written exams are kept in the computer system in coded form. But the reality is that such codes cannot prevent irregularity when senior PSC officials themselves get involved in corruption.

2) In the viva voce examination, around 5,000 candidates--many with good scores in written tests--were given bellow 40, the pass mark in viva voce. This itself is a record. The rejoinder did not deny the allegation.

We agree that viva boards were formed according to the registration serial numbers but a vast number of candidates allegedly bribed to change their viva boards and ensured their expected viva board by claiming to be sick and obtaining medical certificates to that effect.

3) The Daily Star stands corrected about the following mistake. The report mentioned that not a single viva candidate on October 12, 2006 and November 28, 2006 was successful. Instead of "not a single viva candidate" it should read "not a single viva candidate in the general cadre".

4) The PSC sources confirmed that different "package deals" were responsible for the irregularities of the BCS. The 64 successful candidates of November 12, 2006 were allegedly one of such deals, which becomes obvious when compared with other viva voce days.

5) The report mistakenly mentioned a viva voce date on November 11, 2006. The correct date is September 25, 2006 in which three candidates were offered jobs in the foreign service.

6) A total of nine engineering students, along with other successful candidates, passed on October 15, 2006. We regret this error.

7) Our report mentioned four examples of bribery. The protests only the Satkhira example, but remains silent about the other three. We have names of all the four candidates involved but did not publish their names to prevent their personal humiliation.

The Daily Star stands by its report in general, except for some errors in mentioning specific dates. We however agree that some words used in our report is very sweeping and give the impression that majority of the examinees adopted unfair means. This impression is not correct, and as such we regret that such sweeping words were used.