good harvest
In response to the online report that the public institution in Jianli City was admitted with a score of 3.17 in the written test, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Jianli City, Hubei Province responded on August 2 that since only one person participated in the interview for this position and the written test score was too low, it was cancelled. Recruitment plan for this position.
Whether it is a public institution or a state-owned enterprise, recruiting staff for the society should be fair and transparent in accordance with laws and regulations, because the surname of such a unit is "public" and it is also related to employment fairness.
The "Regulations on Personnel Management of Institutions" promulgated by the State Council has relevant provisions on this, and each province and city also has special provisions.
In the recruitment of institutions in Jianli City, Hubei Province, the written test score of 3.17 is surprising. What is even more surprising is that such a written test score can be used for interviews.
The information from the local Human Resources and Social Security Department shows that: 4 people paid for the registration, 2 abandoned the test, and 2 participated in the written test. The written test scores were 54.17 and 3.17 respectively. After qualification review, two candidates entered the interview.
Among them, candidates with a score of 54.17 voluntarily gave up their interview qualifications, resulting in only candidates with a score of 3.17 in the written test to participate in the interview.
Although it is common for some people to give up the test and some people to give up the interview qualification in the recruitment, but if it is linked to the 3.17 candidates who participate in the interview alone, there will be doubts: Are these three people really voluntary choices?
Is there a human operation to leave admissions opportunities for candidates with a score of 3.17?
At present, the matter is still under in-depth investigation, and it is hoped that the relevant departments can answer the public's questions with solid investigation results as soon as possible.
Obviously, canceling the recruitment plan for this position is a wise choice.
This is not only because only one person participated in the interview for the position, and the written test scores are too low, which is not conducive to the selection of outstanding talents, but also because there are many doubts about the recruitment.
In addition to the above questions, is it related to the defects of the recruitment rules that the local government allows candidates with a score of 3.17 in the written test to enter the interview process?
Generally speaking, since it is a written test, there should be a "pass line", and candidates who have entered the "pass line" in the written test may be eligible for an interview.
This can ensure that candidates have the basic qualities and abilities required for the recruitment position.
But no matter how the "pass line" is drawn, a score of 3.17 cannot be considered a "pass", even if the written test is difficult, it should not be so low.
However, the candidate with a score of 3.17 successfully entered the interview process. If it is not questioned by netizens and investigated and verified by relevant departments, it cannot be ruled out that the candidate will eventually successfully enter the institution.
The staff of the Human Resources and Social Security Department of Jianli City responded that it is normal to enter the interview with a score of 3.17 in the written test. There is no limit to the score of the written test, and 100 points are not required.
This statement is both puzzling and difficult to accept.
If there is no limit to the score of the written test, it means that candidates with a score of 0 are also eligible to enter the interview process. If this is the case, in fact, the written test will lose its significance in examining talents.
This makes people doubt whether the design of the recruitment rules is reasonable.
If the recruitment rules are unreasonably designed, there will be hidden dangers for unfair recruitment.
Therefore, it is necessary to investigate whether there are violations in the local area, and also review the recruitment rules.
The "Personnel Management Regulations for Public Institutions" clarifies the procedures for public recruitment of staff by public institutions. The fourth procedure is "examination and inspection". How to take an examination needs to be further clarified in relevant laws and regulations.
The "Interim Measures for the Public Recruitment of Staff in Public Institutions in Hubei Province" has a special chapter on "examination", some of which are more detailed, but there are no specific provisions on how to define the "pass line".
The relevant system is not specific enough for the examination link, and it is probably to allow localities and institutions to formulate examination rules according to their location and position.
However, judging from the incident in Jianli, Hubei, where "the public institution was admitted with a score of 3.17 in the written test of recruitment", it is not ruled out that in some places there is a situation of unfair recruitment due to "improper delegation of power".
It is hoped that the system and decision-making level and the practical operation level can learn from this matter, effectively plug the loopholes in the rules, and effectively maintain the fairness of recruitment in public institutions.