— ✍️ Nethrapal

In 2021, I examined a recurring yet under-discussed pattern in public recruitment: candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) consistently receiving lower interview marks relative to their performance in written examinations. The implications of this pattern are profound. Interviews, when excessively subjective, can quietly dilute the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16.

Over the past few years, I have consolidated a set of ten structural reforms aimed at reducing subjectivity, enhancing transparency, and restoring faith in public recruitment processes. These proposals are not adversarial; they are institutional correctives designed to protect merit while ensuring fairness.

1. End Separate or Segregated Interview Practices

In several institutions, informal practices persist where interview boards are structured or allocated in ways that indirectly segregate candidates by category. Such practices must cease.

Interview boards should be dynamically constituted, with their composition published in advance through a transparent roster system. Board configurations should rotate periodically, and candidates should be randomly assigned shortly before interviews. Randomization minimizes pre-selection bias and reduces opportunities for manipulation.

2. Introduce Faceless Interviews

At the preliminary interaction stage, identifying details—name, caste, religion, region, and gender—should be masked. Interviewers must be prohibited from asking questions that could reveal social identity.

Bias is often unconscious. By removing identity markers, institutions can shift the focus entirely to competence, temperament, and suitability. Many global recruitment systems, including blind auditions in orchestras and anonymized application screening in corporate hiring, have demonstrated how structural masking improves fairness.

3. Cap Interview Weightage at 20%

In many institutions, interviews account for 50% to 80% of total marks—an extraordinary concentration of discretion in a small panel. This invites arbitrariness and undermines objective evaluation.

Interview marks should not exceed 20% of the total score. For example, in a 1000-mark examination, interviews should carry no more than 200 marks. This ensures that years of academic preparation and objective assessment are not overturned by a brief, subjective interaction.

Reducing excessive weightage also diminishes opportunities for favoritism and corruption.

4. Adopt Slab-Based Interview Grading

Interview marks should not vary widely within an undefined range. Instead, grading should be structured into clear slabs—such as

· Extraordinary

· Good

· Average

· Adverse

For a 200-mark interview, predetermined slab scores (e.g., 175, 150, 125, 100) may be assigned. Extreme grades should require a written justification endorsed by at least two-thirds of board members. This “speaking note” mechanism introduces accountability and discourages arbitrary awarding of outlier marks.

5. Reform Interview Board Composition

Every interview board should include at least four members, with mandatory representation of SC, ST, and OBC members constituting at least 50%.

Where a reserved category candidate receives an “adverse” grading or is declared “Not Found Suitable,” members from reserved communities should have the authority to refer the case to a larger review board. This is not about preferential treatment; it is about ensuring that historically disadvantaged groups are not silently excluded by opaque processes.

Institutional diversity in decision-making bodies strengthens legitimacy and trust.

6. Provide Local Language Interview Options

For candidates from rural and non-elite educational backgrounds, language can become a barrier unrelated to competence. Many capable candidates struggle not because of intellectual deficiency but because of linguistic disadvantage.

Public service recruitment must assess ability—not accent or fluency in elite English. Candidates should have the option to appear in recognized regional languages. Boards must include members proficient in those languages to ensure rigorous and fair evaluation.

7. Standardize Interview Questions and Evaluation Metrics

Evidence suggests that question patterns often differ across candidates. Some receive technical and concrete questions; others are subjected to abstract philosophical queries.

Interview frameworks should clearly define components—functional, technical, attitudinal—and their proportional weightage. The methodology of evaluation should be transparent and publicly available. Equal question difficulty standards must apply across all candidates.

Transparency is the antidote to suspicion.

8. Mandate Video Recording with Conditional Access

All interviews should be video recorded. Recordings may be made available to candidates in cases of extreme adverse marking or appeals.

This introduces procedural accountability without compromising administrative efficiency. Knowing that decisions are reviewable naturally promotes fairness.

9. Rebalance Written Examination Structure

Public recruitment should rely primarily on objective and written assessments. A suggested distribution:

· 20% Prelims (objective screening)

· 60% Written Main Examination

· 20% Interview

Within written examinations, multiple-choice components should retain reasonable weightage to reduce subjective variability inherent in long-answer evaluations.

Objective assessment enhances reliability.

10. Rationalize Reservation-Linked Entry Conditions

Age limits, number of attempts, and fee structures should not distort competition. A uniform upper age limit (for instance, 35 years), unlimited attempts, and minimal uniform application fees would remove artificial barriers.

Reservation should operate through cutoffs and seat allocation—not through procedural obstacles. Candidates from SC, ST, and OBC communities who exceed the general merit cutoff should be counted in general merit without displacing reserved seats, thereby expanding representation organically.

Why These Reforms Matter

India’s public service commissions and university recruitment systems occupy a unique constitutional space. They are not merely hiring bodies; they are instruments of social mobility.

When interview processes lack transparency, they create perceptional injustice. When perception of injustice spreads among educated youth, institutional trust erodes. Social stability depends not only on economic growth but on procedural fairness.

The reforms outlined above are not radical. They are structural correctives grounded in administrative law principles—reasoned decision-making, transparency, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness.

Public institutions must recognize that the interview, though valuable in assessing personality and judgment, should complement—not override—objective merit.

A Call for Institutional Leadership

State governments, public service commissions, and universities should undertake systematic review of their interview frameworks. Pilot reforms can be introduced and evaluated empirically.

India’s constitutional democracy is strongest when its institutions evolve through reasoned reform rather than reactive litigation.

The objective is not confrontation but correction. A transparent system benefits everyone—general category and reserved category alike—because merit thrives only where processes are credible.

For years, policy researchers and civil society groups have highlighted these concerns. It is encouraging that some institutions have begun acknowledging the need for reform. Sustained structural change, however, requires political will and administrative courage.

Fair recruitment is not merely a procedural issue—it is a democratic imperative.

- The author has over 16 years of experience in the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), and is a seasoned tax enforcement leader who is passionate about ensuring compliance and fairness in the tax system. He has a strong academic background with a B-Tech from IIT-Madras in Electrical Engineering, where he received a Silver Medal, and a PGDM from IIM-Bangalore, where he specialized in Finance and Economics.