Top of the civil service examination but not appointed: lawful, yet unreasonable
Under the provisional rules on civil service recruitment, appointment turns not only on the written and oral examinations but also on an assessment, a medical examination and public notice, and the assessment is an independent stage at which candidates start level again. In practice employers usually appoint the highest scorer, so passing over the first place may be lawful, but the reasons must be given in detail. In the Xia Min case the official explanation was too vague to convince, and public confidence suffered.
1. Coming first does not mean appointment
Under the relevant provisions of the Provisional Regulations on the Recruitment of Civil Servants, recruitment in China today has the following main stages:
1. The recruiting authority draws up the recruitment plan and publishes the announcement;
2. Candidates apply and the recruiting authority examines their qualifications;
3. Candidates sit the written examination and the interview;
4. Candidates undergo assessment and a medical examination;
5. The recruiting authority, on the basis of the examination results, the assessment and the medical examination, proposes the list of persons to be recruited and publishes it for public comment.
Although recruitment has both an examination and an assessment stage, the public impression is that the written examination and the interview are what matter. Individual study and commercial coaching alike pour effort into those two. The assessment, because its standards are unclear and it does not discriminate clearly between candidates, is often thought a formality, and the belief that the highest scorer is bound to be appointed has become a piece of received wisdom. It is not so.
On the current institutional design and legal rules, the assessment is a stage independent of the written examination and the interview, which means that on entering the assessment candidates return to the same starting line and earlier examination scores are no longer necessarily the reference point. The purpose of assessing more candidates than posts is to give the employing body more autonomy in personnel decisions, so that it can select and use people flexibly according to its needs. In practice, however, the assessment usually does not differentiate strongly, and to reduce disputes employers tend to appoint the higher scorer; over time, appointing the first place has become an unwritten rule. In fact, an employer that does not appoint the first place after the assessment commits no procedural irregularity.
2. Fairness is what matters
As examinations have become more scientific and standardised, it is genuinely difficult for those with connections to get through the written examination and the interview by back-room dealings, but the assessment stage, being relatively less transparent, readily becomes a breeding ground for unfair competition. The Xia Min case caused such a stir because the official reason was hard to accept: "the comrade in second place is a better fit for the post", without any clear account of how. An authority talking to itself sounds too thin. No doubt the recruiting unit gave the matter full consideration, but it should have given a detailed explanation, to settle public doubt and to avoid damaging the credibility of a government department and casting doubt on the principles of openness, fairness and justice in the recruitment system.
Recruitment to the civil service is a most serious and just examination, and fairness in the process matters greatly. As the written examination and the interview have become standardised, how to assess candidates in a more scientific and objective way is a new challenge for employing departments. Fairness, however, is in any event the first value of civil service recruitment: only by ruling out every possible back-room dealing and injustice can the authority of the examination and the credibility of government departments be maintained, and a genuinely open, fair and just competitive environment created.