There are ratings for every thing and there are different testing rods to determine on different counts. Basis for this is worked out the way it suits the agency concerned. Merit also differs from one individual judge to another according to their whims and fancy. During my college day I was a candidate in an Inter University debating contest on the subject where I had to use a few words of criticism by way of a critical appreciation against the National Poet like Maithili Saran Gupta. One of the three judges of the team who was a D.Litt on the poet. He got annoyed and gave me only 5 marks out of 100 as against the other two who gave me 96 and 98. I did stand first in the competition but I never forget the instance thinking as to how there are people suffering from prejudices. If ratings are honestly based on merit, where is the question of judges applying their individual bent of mind. If performance has to be judged, it has to be done based on the way a contestant plays his role without acting as a sycophant to the people who sit on judgement. A girl candidate in her ICS exam (old form of IAS) had to appear before a team consisting of two judges -one being too fat and bulky and the other one was like a pitch dark horse complexion wise. One of the questions put to her by the interviewers was as to what type of a husband she would like to go when marrying. Prompt was the reply '..the one neither as fat as you are (addressing to fat man) nor as black as you are
(addressing to the other black complexioned man). When the result was announced, she was declared selected and found her name in the merit list. Look, if the judges had any individual prejudice on remarks individually against them she was not to be selected at all. Ratings are a common feature in the present day of tough competition in all fields and honesty demands that necessary recognition be extended to performance wise merit without forcing one's own whims and fancies.