Govt holds line on CSS age limit
Establishment Division cites administrative burden and shorter service careers

The government has rejected recommendations to raise the upper age limit and increase the number of attempts for the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination, deciding to retain the existing policy.
The Establishment Division and Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) have submitted their written positions on the matter to the parliamentary committee, opposing the proposed changes.
A subcommittee of the Senate Standing Committee had recommended increasing the CSS age limit from 30 to 35 years and raising the number of attempts allowed from three to five.
However, the Establishment Division termed the recommendations impracticable and decided to retain the existing upper age limit of 30 years for candidates appearing in the competitive examination.
According to the Establishment Division, any increase in the age limit or number of attempts falls within the federal government's policy domain, while the FPSC is responsible for implementing the policies approved by the government.
The FPSC, at its 174th meeting, had also decided to retain the existing policy governing the age limit and number of attempts for CSS candidates.
The Establishment Division said increasing the age limit and number of attempts would result in a significant rise in the number of candidates, creating additional administrative pressure in conducting the examination and checking answer copies.
It further said candidates could end up spending their productive and valuable years repeatedly appearing in the examination instead of pursuing other opportunities.
The division also maintained that officers joining the civil service at a relatively older age would have a shorter effective period of service, potentially affecting the availability of experienced officers over the longer term.
HAIDER NASEEM




















COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ