In recent news from Epoch Times on December 24, 2025, a 33-year-old man from Chongqing participated in the civil servant selection and despite ranking first in the results, he was not selected. The Chongqing Finance Bureau issued a report to clarify the situation, raising public concerns about the transparency of the differential assessment mechanism.
According to Da Feng News, Ms. Xu’s son, Qi Ting (pseudonym), in the 2025 Chongqing Finance Bureau civil servant selection examination, applied for the position of “Comprehensive Management 2”. He ranked first in both the written test and overall score, and passed the physical examination to enter the assessment phase. However, Qi Ting was not included in the tentative employment list announced by the Finance Bureau, and instead, the second and joint third-ranked candidates for the position were selected.
Ms. Xu mentioned that her son has a master’s degree, excellent work performance, and currently serves as the deputy station manager in a public institution. He successfully passed the qualification review when applying. The Finance Bureau explained the reasons for his non-selection, including not receiving a full score evaluation from the original unit during the assessment phase, lacking a technical job title, and insufficient job-role matching. Family members questioned why he passed the qualification review if there was a mismatch in job roles.
On December 23, the Chongqing Finance Bureau announced that in this selection process, a total of 10 individuals entered the differential assessment phase. Different methods such as individual conversations, field visits, file checks, and interviews with colleagues and leaders were used to gather opinions on the candidates.
Due to the specialized nature of the position, factors such as job-role matching, professional skills, work experience, etc., were taken into consideration during the comprehensive selection process. Out of the 10 candidates, 5 were selected for trial use, while the other 5 were not included. One candidate, referred to as Qi (pseudonym), had a significant gap in meeting the job requirements and had some questionable aspects in his file. After a thorough investigation and verification, a decision was made not to proceed with his trial employment.
The report stated that the assessment results were announced to all candidates on December 16, 2025, and no objections were raised by the candidates.
This report immediately sparked a wave of doubts among the public.
Netizens commented, “In general, the candidate who ranks first in the written test should not be rejected. Whether the original unit gives a full score should not be the primary condition for selection. Professional and technical requirements should be clarified during recruitment, rather than restricting them during the assessment, which is not convincing. Requesting a full score from the original unit seems unreasonable, right?” “If that’s the case, they should conduct interviews before the exams. Otherwise, no matter how the exams are conducted, it’s useless. It’s a waste of time. How did he pass the qualification review?”
“It’s probably because of a huge difference in connections.” “It’s just a formality.” “It’s clearly a loophole, but the response is a bureaucratic excuse.”
“Concerns about discretion: if there is a lack of transparent explanation mechanism for subjective standards, it may weaken the credibility of the selection process. Summary: The core contradiction of the incident lies in the fact that the top-ranking candidate was rejected due to vague reasons like ‘mismatch in job roles’ and undisclosed ‘questionable aspects’ in the files, with the public expecting transparency in the assessment standards and evidence disclosure.”
Well-known blogger “Li Ge” said, “This incident exposes the conflict between the flexibility of the rules and the rigidity of the results in civil servant selection. The public is not opposed to differential assessments but hopes for clear rules and transparent procedures. If the position emphasizes professional suitability, the conditions should be clearly stated during recruitment, rather than adding them temporarily during the assessment phase; if the original unit’s evaluation is important, the scoring criteria should be made public to avoid subjective decisions.”
In China, civil servant selection refers to the system where government agencies at the municipal level and above publicly select and appoint civil servants from lower-level agencies. This is one of the methods for civil servant transfer. The process of public selection includes issuing announcements, registration and qualification review, examinations, organizational assessments, decision-making, and appointments.