Should Government Abolish Interviews for Class I and Class II Jobs Now?

By Ummar Jamal

Interviews have long been a point of contention in government job selections, especially when compared to the more objective format of written exams. While interviews allow for a face-to-face evaluation of candidates, the lack of transparency, subjectivity, and potential for bias have led many to question their utility in hiring processes for Class I and Class II jobs in the Indian government. Given the 2016 decision by the Government of India to abolish interviews for Class III and IV government jobs, the question now arises whether this move should be extended to Class I and Class II jobs. The answer, quite evidently, is yes.

Lack of Transparency in Interviews

One of the primary concerns regarding interviews in government job selections is the lack of transparency. While written exams are evaluated based on clear criteria—such as the number of correct answers, negative marking, or other established guidelines—interviews do not offer the same level of clarity. Candidates often leave the interview with little understanding of how their performance was judged. Unlike exams, where a candidate can receive a scorecard or marksheet that objectively shows where they excelled or fell short, interviews do not typically provide detailed feedback.

This lack of transparency fosters a sense of arbitrariness in the selection process. For example, candidates frequently express frustration over not understanding the criteria used by interviewers. The panel may consider factors such as communication skills, attitude, or general demeanor, but how these are quantified remains ambiguous. In competitive scenarios, where candidates are often distinguished by slim margins, the absence of clear evaluation standards can lead to confusion and mistrust in the process.

Subjectivity and Bias

Interviews, by their very nature, are highly subjective. While they are intended to assess a candidate’s suitability for a role beyond their academic or professional qualifications, the human element involved opens the door to biases—both conscious and unconscious. Several psychological studies indicate that factors like physical appearance, gender, socio-economic background, or even regional accent can influence the interviewer’s perception of a candidate, despite being irrelevant to the job at hand.

The release of final marks for 761 selected candidates in the 2020 Civil Services Examination ignited debates about potential bias against reserved category candidates in interviews. Despite scoring well in the written exam, candidates from OBC, SC, ST, and EWS categories received lower interview scores compared to general category candidates. A statistical analysis of written and interview marks revealed a weak negative correlation for OBC candidates and moderate negative correlation for SC, ST, and EWS candidates, suggesting higher written marks correspond to lower interview scores for these groups. In contrast, general category candidates exhibit a positive correlation, indicating higher written scores often lead to better interview performance.This reflects interviewers unconsciously judge candidates based on their social and educational backgrounds disclosed in the Detailed Application Form (DAF), potentially influencing scores.

Similarly, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) 2021 exam l became the center of a controversy over alleged nepotism, sparking demands for transparency in the selection process. Concerns arose after the results revealed that top ranks were secured by the relatives of bureaucrats and politicians, including sons, daughters, and in-laws. 

There have been numerous other such accounts and allegations in India where candidates with lesser qualifications were favored in interviews due to their personal connections or influence.

The subjective nature of interviews always leaves room for nepotism and favoritism. Candidates with influential connections may receive preferential treatment, allowing them to secure positions for which they may not be the most qualified. This not only perpetuates inequality in government job selections but also erodes public trust in the system. Deserving candidates, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are often overlooked in favor of those with the right connections, further entrenching systemic inequalities.

 Corruption and Lack of Accountability

The interview process for government jobs in India has often been criticized for being susceptible to corruption. With little oversight and minimal accountability, interview panels have a significant amount of discretion in determining which candidates are selected. In many cases, this power has been exploited, leading to instances where candidates with personal or political connections are favored over others.

Interviews are typically conducted behind closed doors, there is often no mechanism to ensure accountability. While written exams can be reevaluated to check for errors or discrepancies, the interview process offers no such recourse. Once a decision is made, candidates have little to no opportunity to challenge the outcome, further deepening concerns about the opacity and fairness of the process.

Tail piece

Given the issues associated with interviews, there is a strong case to be made for replacing or at least minimizing their role in government job selections. Written exams and other objective assessments provide a much more transparent and equitable process. By using measurable criteria, such as a candidate’s knowledge, skills, and abilities, objective assessments reduce the potential for bias and favoritism.

Objective assessments can also help create a more merit-based system. In India, where government jobs are highly sought after, competition is fierce, and even small differences in performance can determine success or failure. By relying on quantifiable measures, such as exam scores, rather than subjective judgments, the government can ensure that the most qualified candidates are selected based on their merit, rather than their connections or influence.

While the Government of India has made strides in addressing these issues by abolishing interviews for Class III and IV jobs, it is time to extend this policy to Class I and II jobs as well. By relying on objective assessments, such as written exams, the government can create a more transparent, equitable, and merit-based selection process, ensuring that the most qualified candidates are chosen for these crucial roles.

Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

• The author is a columnist and National  President of J&K Students Association. He tweets at ummar_jamal and can be reached at [email protected] 

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

MONTHLY	Rs 100
YEARLY	Rs 1000
LIFETIME	Rs 10000

CLICK FOR DETAILS