Over 14,000 vacancies referred, thousands still chasing the hope of a government job
Aditi Raina Gill
Jammu Tawi, Sep 26: Jammu and Kashmir’s two major recruiting agencies, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) and the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB), collected a combined Rs 82.45 crore in examination and application fees from job aspirants since October 2024, according to government data placed before the Legislative Assembly.
The figures have brought into sharp focus the financial burden borne by unemployed and job-seeking youth, many of whom continue to depend heavily on government recruitment for employment opportunities. For a young person struggling without a regular income, repeated application fees for multiple examinations can become a significant expense, particularly when recruitment processes involve several stages and long waiting periods.
According to the government data, JKPSC collected Rs 15,00,99,000, while JKSSB collected Rs 67,44,41,800 during the period, taking the combined amount to Rs 82,45,40,800.
The issue assumes greater significance in a job market where thousands of educated youth continue to compete for a relatively limited number of government posts. The two agencies advertised 12,241 posts during the period under review, while selections had been finalised for 4,702 of those posts in the data cited in the government reply on the fee issue.
The broader government figures placed before the Assembly separately show that 14,270 vacancies were referred to JKPSC and JKSSB since October 2024, with 7,580 selections finalised. The government has also reported 38,872 vacant posts under the direct recruitment quota across departments.
For an unemployed youth, however, every recruitment notification represents more than a form to be filled. It carries a hope of employment, financial independence and a more secure future. With limited alternatives and intense competition, many aspirants are compelled to apply for multiple posts, often spending money repeatedly despite uncertain outcomes.
This is where the question of sensitivity towards job seekers becomes important. While recruitment agencies have legitimate expenses in conducting examinations, the financial burden on unemployed aspirants cannot simply be viewed as an administrative cost. For young people without a regular source of income, repeated examination fees can add to the frustration already caused by prolonged unemployment and uncertainty.
The government has maintained that the examination and application fees are used to partly meet the expenditure incurred in the recruitment process and are not treated as a source of revenue or profit. According to the government’s explanation, these expenses include administrative, technical and logistical arrangements, scrutiny and processing of applications, examination centres and manpower, preparation and handling of question papers, security arrangements, IT infrastructure, evaluation and declaration of results.
The government has also said that the recruiting agencies prescribe fees under the applicable rules and provide concessions to specified categories wherever admissible. It has maintained that the practice is broadly consistent with that followed by national recruiting agencies such as the Union Public Service Commission and the Staff Selection Commission.
Yet, the debate goes beyond whether the fees are technically classified as revenue. It is also about the circumstances of those who pay them. For an employed person, an application fee may be a routine expense; for an unemployed graduate applying for several examinations, it can represent money set aside from limited family resources or personal savings.
The larger challenge is therefore to expand meaningful employment opportunities so that young people are not left repeatedly filling out forms in the hope that one examination will finally change their lives. Government recruitment is only one component of the employment landscape, and sustained efforts are also required to create private-sector, entrepreneurial and other productive opportunities.
The concern of the youth is not merely about the fee charged for an application. It is about the uncertainty surrounding their future. Every notification raises expectations; every examination demands preparation, time and money; and every delay can prolong the anxiety of those waiting for an opportunity.
Recruitment agencies must necessarily recover genuine examination-related expenses, but the government could also examine whether the financial burden on unemployed aspirants can be reduced, particularly for candidates applying repeatedly. Greater transparency about recruitment expenditure, timely completion of selection processes and wider employment opportunities could help restore confidence among young job seekers.
For a generation facing intense competition and uncertainty, employment is not simply an economic requirement—it is also a source of dignity, independence and hope. The larger responsibility, therefore, is to ensure that the aspirations of unemployed youth are met with opportunities rather than allowing their desperation to become an increasingly expensive journey from one application form to another.