Sushant Darji, CSC Docket No. 2022-3169

BackgroundSushant Darji, Reba Oduro, and Zil Patel appeal the scoring and validity of the Senior Engineer Transportation (PS1109T), Department of Transportation promotional examination. These appeals have been consolidated as they pertain to similar issues.

By way of background, the subject examination’s closing date was December 23, 2019. A total of 17 employees applied and 16 were admitted. The written test was conducted on June 4, 2022. A total of 12 employees were found eligible, including Oduro, who was ranked seventh, and Patel, who was ranked 11, and four did not pass the written examination, including Darji. Certification PS220940 was issued containing eight names, certification PS220941 was issued containing 10 names, certification PS220942 was issued containing six names, and certification PS220944 was issued containing seven names. The dispositions for these certifications are due November 11, 2022. The list expires on August 10, 2025.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellants present that they are provisionally serving in the subject title and are part of unit scope T385, Planning, Multimodal and Grants Administration. Darji indicates that he is part of the Bureau of Statewide Strategy, Division of Statewide Planning and Oduro and Patel indicate that they are part of the Bureau of Safety, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. The appellants state that they were expecting that the test would consist of technical questions based on the material and processes used by their unit scope, and they believe that the majority of questions were from outside of their work area and unit scope.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, the written test consisted of technical and non-technical portions. The technical questions were developed by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) provided by the appointing authority. The SMEs were chosen by the appointing authority to represent the area or areas that utilize the title within the T385 unit scope, which was the unit scope to which the examination was open. The SMEs under the T385 unit scope reviewed and revised the job specification’s task statements and Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) for applicability to the T385 unit scope. The SMEs then wrote technical items based on the appropriate KSAs. The non-technical questions tested general knowledge that is expected for a candidate who is going to be a Senior Engineer Transportation. After conducting a job analysis with the SMEs to determine the different content areas, this agency developed the non-technical questions. Further, the appellants have not identified with any specificity which questions on the exam were not relevant for the subject title and why those questions were irrelevant. It is noted that examinations are not tailored for a specific position and test the KSAs required for overall successful performance in the title. Accordingly, the appellants have not met their burdens of proof.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.