It states in very clear terms that I have not been offered the post of Commissioner for Oath and the decision of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court is final and no appeal will be entertained.
Looking back on this 'short' application process that took more than 2 years and having gone through two examinations as well as an interview, I believe my effort has not been wasted nor entirely futile.
 |
| A Likely Vocation Gone Awry |
On hindsight, they have to be more consistent with the way the examinations has been set. The current manner where questions could be in MCQ, fill in the blanks with short answers as well as application questions in subjective format which changes year after year; and the undue stress on memory work on the rules should be reviewed. They should stress more on the understanding of principles.
On the interview sessions, questions that should be asked should be more on testing the maturity of the candidates and not on repeating questions that have already been asked in the examinations where the candidates have already passed them to be short-listed for the interview.
Asking questions that has nothing to do with the job as a Commissioner for Oath should also be reviewed.
Another thing, they should get more elderly interviewers and not young officers of the court to conduct the interviews so that the sessions will be more useful and engaging for both interviewer and interviewee.
By not giving another chance to a candidate for a second interview could also be considered harsh by all measure. After all, justice must be fairly served in a more equitable manner!
Perhaps, that's why they say that justice is blind!
No, I am not one of those 'sour grape' persona or sore loser.
I leave here on record for those who intend to pursue the course of taking the Commissioner for Oath examinations, the advice above for whatever it is worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment