Civil Services Preliminary Exam 2026: Tough by Design or Default?

Story so far:

The Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, introduced in 1979 on the recommendations of the Kothari Committee, was designed as a screening mechanism – a “filter and funnel” – to short-list candidates for the descriptive main examination. In its original format, it consisted of two components: an elective at graduate level and a general studies paper, with the optional paper carrying more weight. For many years this system worked without problems with minor changes.

Marks distribution needed to help with preparation, say UPSC candidates

The Alagh committee established in 2000 noted that the preliminary examination should have an optional paper that would assess the applicant’s intellectual abilities and maintain his connection to the university system. It also proposed the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) which would assess skills such as general awareness, problem solving, data analysis and decision making. The commission also recommended that the questions in the preliminary examination should be challenging and a case study approach should be adopted.

In 2009, the SK Khanna Committee recommended that the Preliminary Examination be renamed as Civil Services Eligibility Test with two common papers in the Preliminary Examination. The preliminary examination has been reconstructed to consist of two papers — General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II. Book I covers all the conventional ‘humanities’ areas, while Book II contains questions on quantitative ability, reasoning, comprehension, interpersonal and communication skills, decision making and problem solving. The components of Paper-II have been designed to test whether an aspirant has the ability to imbibe new technologies. Both the papers were of equal weightage and the combined marks in both the papers were used to determine the merit. This change practically disconnected the Preliminary Examination from the university system. After a few years, due to protests, Paper-II known as CSAT was qualified in nature. In practice, this meant that nearly five thousand applicants were narrowed down to around 10,000 candidates based solely on their performance in 100 attempted questions over two hours.

Reducing a huge pool of aspirants to a manageable number through a paper of just 100 questions is an inherently difficult task. As a result, examiners were forced to constantly reinvent and compose the most unpredictable questions. Over time, it became quite clear that the goal of selecting candidates was overshadowed by the need to eliminate them. Even the qualifying paper has become a rejection tool, with the overall difficulty of the questions increasing.

What has changed this year?

Against this evolving backdrop, the May civil services (preliminary) examination came under widespread criticism for perceived unfairness in the distribution and format of questions. Many aspirants found the paper unusually difficult and unpredictable – concerns publicly acknowledged by the UPSC chairman, who empathized with the candidates.

This has sparked a wider debate about whether the nature of the post was an unintended result of systemic limitations or a deliberate shift in exam design, and more importantly, what course corrections are needed to ensure fairness, balance and credibility in the screening process.

This year, UPSC has committed to greater transparency and has agreed to release the answer key of the preliminary exam immediately after. Open-endedness also meant that the questions had to be established from verifiable authoritative sources. The questions were constructed using carefully selected information drawn from government websites.

Attempting the question paper involved sifting through 55 pages and understanding 40,000 words in two hours. In addition, there was a distortion of the substantive distribution of the questions and a noticeable shift in the style of questioning. As a result, candidates found no connection between their preparation and the questions. They had to guess, “some knowledgeable” and “some wild”. Solving previous years question papers which was considered gold standard didn’t help either.

This gap between preparation and examination, coupled with an element of surprise, prompted candidates to voice their concerns. The democratization of speech through social media platforms further amplified the protests and created a snowball effect.

Thus, the nature of the questionnaire seems less a matter of deliberate design and more a consequence of systemic limitations—a byproduct of the myopic research pattern established 15 years ago. In retrospect, the committee that introduced this pattern missed a statement that is crucial in policy formulation; that anticipation is the highest form of competence. It failed to adequately anticipate the problem of balancing a growing number of applicants with a relatively static number of vacancies.

What is the way out?

The perceived unfairness of the preliminary examination has been widely voiced by candidates and recently flagged by a parliamentary committee. However, the president’s acknowledgment of the article’s difficulty should not remain a mere example of the proverbial “ventilation therapy.” Many crises in governance are not sudden surprises; they are warning signs that were noticed but not acted upon in time. This appears to be one such signal – one that calls for deeper reflection and an early course correction.

The time has come for the government to appoint a committee to review the exam pattern and make appropriate long-term changes after public consultation. UPSC collects information regarding the socio-economic profile of the candidates. They have information about the distribution of applicants by place of birth, schools and colleges attended, parents’ status, etc., because they collect this information at the preparation stage itself. This information should be used as an input to match the examination scheme to the background of the aspirants.

Questions may be inherently unpredictable, but candidates should not feel that they are unable to achieve the required level of questions or that the highest positions in the country are beyond their reach. The government must reform both the examination system and the university framework by introducing “bridging courses” in line with the recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. Such measures would help restore a visible alignment between education and assessment.

The education system and public employment come from the same source – the government. Any disconnect between the two risks undermining their trust in the system. Respecting the aspirations of this generation and maintaining their faith is the order of the day. It is better to prevent a crisis than to “put it out”.

The author is the director of Brain Tree, Hyderabad, an institute that trains candidates for civil services examination.

Published – 24 Jun 2026 08:30 IST