Discuss the ethical issues raised by candidates fearing bias at the interview stage of public recruitment, and suggest safeguards.

In October 2026, MPSC aspirants protested in Pune against leaked papers. Many of them refused to be photographed. They feared police notices and feared that an officer at the protest might later sit on their interview panel [1]. That fear shows the main ethical problem with interviews: unchecked discretion can be used against candidates who speak up, and that weakens trust in merit.

Ethical Issues

• Equality of opportunity: Articles 14 and 16 guarantee equal treatment in public employment [2]. Subjective interview marks can override written merit, which goes against fairness and objectivity.
• Chilling effect on dissent: When candidates fear being punished at interview, they stop using their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(a)/(b) [2]. Ethically, the state should not use its power as an employer to silence citizens.
• Perceived bias is itself a harm: Justice must also be seen to be done. Even suspected bias weakens the legitimacy of Public Service Commissions under Articles 315–323 [2].
• Unequal impact: Women aspirants hid their presence even from their own families, so the risk falls hardest on them [1].
• Conflict of interest: An examiner who judges a candidate they recognise from a protest is not impartial.

Safeguards

• Reduce or remove interviews where personality is not essential: The Centre stopped interviews for Group C and non-gazetted Group B posts from 2016 to reduce discretion [3]. State PSCs could do the same for comparable posts.
• Anonymise interviews: Give candidates code numbers. Do not show panels any background information unrelated to the job.
• Assign panels randomly on the day: Rotate members and make every member declare and step away from any conflict of interest.
• Make the process transparent: Record interviews on video, publish scoring rubrics and disclose marks so candidates can seek review.
• Protect protesters: A police notice alone should not count against a candidate in verification or selection. Only a conviction should.
• Independent redressal: Set up an independent grievance forum. Statutory backing would help, as the 2024 Act did for central exams [4].

Taken together, these safeguards make the interview a test of suitability, not a test of loyalty. Combining less discretion with more transparency would protect the right to protest and the principle of merit together. This upholds Article 16 and SDG 16 (accountable and inclusive institutions) and rebuilds young people's trust in public recruitment.