08 April 2012
06:36 PM
My interview was on 27th Mar in Purushottam Agarwal's Board.
I didn't have a good feeling after the interview was over and so was not very keen on sharing my
experience. But time nahi pass ho raha hai results tak (ajeeb ajeeb sapne aa rahe hain jinme mujhe
100 se 200 marks tak milte hain) toh shayad share karke kuch accha lage
(Bad) jokes apart, I hope that my experience is of some use to other candidates.
Here's what I remember of the interview:
Chairman: Latest movie you have watched? (had mentioned movies in my hobbies)
I said Pan Singh Tomar. Other questions revolved around it (from other members too) such as: What
is the movie about? Is it only about athletes? Do we ignore our athletes?
I gave some standard answers which, probably, nobody was interested in hearing.
Chairman: Scenes with subtle references to cultural reasons for Pan Singh Tomar becoming a Dacoit.
I started screwing up from here and couldn't properly answer it. Was also kind of admonished (or
perhaps advised but in a stern tone) by Chairman for not thinking before answering. Finally this
conservation ended with him asking me the meaning of the word Baagi where again I screwed up. I
just got stuck on 'traitor' which I knew wasn't right. Since I had taken some time for thinking about
the meaning and had also watched the movie, I thought it wouldn't sound nice to say "I don't know,
sir". So I went ahead, opened my mouth and became the most disappointing thing the Chairman
would have seen that day.
Chairman (showing his disappointment with a jerk of his head ) told me that the correct word was
rebel.
Chairman said something like 'our interview has gone down the wrong way etc.' I think this took
around 6-7 minutes.
M1: Why civil service? Gave a decent answer (which I didn't link with social service etc.) and I remember receiving the
approval of one-two members. I also linked it to my work-ex and mentioned a government project
where I had worked. Then some follow-up questions related to my answer and my previous
employer (he basically tried to convince me that what my previous employer did was also good and
an IAS officer does nothing but coordination at which I said that coordination = project management
and that it was very important.)
M1: What sector would you want to work in if you become a civil servant?
I thought for some time and said health. CM asked me why health and I told him about the poor
indicators of health.
M1: Schemes in the health sector
I talked about ICDS, NRHM in detail and also about the proposed NUHM.
M1: Is NRHM doing good?
I told him about the positive impact NRHM has made and then talked about the problems that its
implementation faces (quoting a recent Health Ministry report). This was a well prepared answer
and the part where I mentioned the shortcomings was very well received.
M1 then reminded me about the NRHM in UP.
I said there were allegations of financial irregularities.
M1: See, this will always happen. In remote places, someone will say that the building has been
M1: See, this will always happen. In remote places, someone will say that the building has been
made but it won't be there. There will always be irregularities (I don't remember the exact questions
but this is the crux of what he asked)
I just gave a one liner like if administration is good everything will be good (lame, isn't it? ; but
somehow it seemed to have gone okay - at least I'd like to think so )
M1: What would you do to improve the implementation of the scheme?
I gave some general answer. He reminded of using technology and also asked if we could build a
system to track the implementation. Again I gave a general answer.
M2: Asked me something about education. He spoke for around 3 minutes explaining his question
and CM also tried to give me the gist of what he wanted to ask. As I understood it, his question had
two parts: (i) is education useful for poverty alleviation and (ii) does our education system restrict
the progress of people.
I didn't do well here. Gave a very general answer while I could have used specific examples and the
worst thing with this was that I ended my answer abruptly. CM waited for 10-30 seconds and then
pointed to the next member to ask his questions.
M3: Wasn't happy with me leaving chemical engineering.
My response to this can be basically reduced to: sir chemical engineering toh maine campus se
nikalte hi choddh di thi
Actually I said that choosing chemical engineering wasn't an informed choice. I got a rank and
accordingly took what I was told was best for my rank.
M3: What other options did you have?
I said Comp Sci/Elec etc. in Roorkee.
M3: (Kind of sad) Was civil not available?
When I said it was he was like 'I don't know why you didn't take civil'
This was not exactly a question. He was speaking generally and perhaps just thinking aloud. I didn't
say anything in response.
M3: Again generally speaking he said would chemical engineering be of any use in civil service and
other similar questions.
I said that my previous employer had hired me for certain skills and these would be useful in civil
service as well. Chairman probably gave his approval (could as well be that he was bored with my
answer because I am sure he had a very low opinion of me ) because I heard a sound from him.
M3: Gave me a situation: choose between honest-but-doesn't-work employee and dishonest-but-
gets-the-work-done employee.
I went with the honest one. Said honest would at least not harm the organization while dishonest
will get work done but what would I do if at the end of the year I discovered a scam in my
organization. Some people have given me better answers to this situation (and I also think I could
have explained my choice in a better way) but this is all I could think there. Chairman said that M4
had given you tricky question at which I again repeated my answer. CM then said "yes you also have
a point" (in jest or in approval, I can't say )
M4 (lady member, nicest and kindest of all, had been supportive all along): Has Uttarakhand (my
home state) benefited from the statehood?
IMO, I gave a good answer with facts and compared the economic situation of UP and Uttarakhand
for periods before and after the bifurcation of UP. Also made a point that before getting statehood
Uttarakhand was the most backward part of the UP which seemed to please the Chairman.
Then some general conversation followed about the industrial development (where, what kind etc.)
and also about the administration in Uttarakhand. I told her that the smaller state had brought
admin closer to people and now policies are relevant to local issues and made by a local entity
instead of a distant, centralized one which might not take into account local factors, priorities etc.
This also went well with the Chairman.
M4 (lady member): Has the migration stopped from the hills?
Answered that it hadn't stopped and said that this has been an area of underachievement for the
Answered that it hadn't stopped and said that this has been an area of underachievement for the
state. Told her that industrial development was confined to three plain districts.
M4 (lady member): What about the sex ratio?
Told her that sex ratio is better than the national average but child sex ratio is lower and has also
seen a decline of 20 points in the last 10 years.
She seemed to have some confusion with the term 'child sex ratio' and asked me what it meant (I am
not sure why). I started explaining it and another member pitched in and also explained it to her. I
guess, I said something wrong there, otherwise she wouldn't have had this confusion.
M4 (lady member): So do you also face the problem of shortage of brides like in other states?
Told her that no such problem at present but this low child sex ratio will have this effect in future.
(At this point I had the urge to tell her that I personally haven't faced any shortage (of brides) and
nor do I expect in future, seriously! .)
Then came some general questions about football which I answered decently. M4 asked me to tell
about my experience in the sport. M1 asked me about Indian football and I said it had stagnated. At
this everyone laughed. I explained my answer a little. M4 asked me that as an administrator what
would I do for football. M2 said that I must be watching a lot of EPL.
And this is where my interview ended. Another screw-up here. Didn't thank everyone individually
just said Thank You to the Chairman and left the room.
Quite a few of my answers, especially the ones to CM and M2 were not as crisp and fluent and as I
would have wanted them to be. These are the few things I learned from the experience:
1)Working on your profile helps.
2)Discussions with friends/fellow aspirants are way better than mocks - if you generally do not
converse in English (and it is your medium of interview) then this is a must for you. Also helps in
shaping your views.
3)Whatever happens in your interview, never forget the basic things such as greeting the members
when you enter and exit the room. It may have very little impact on your marks but it is better to be
on the safer side.
4) Think before you speak. Members are always patient (at least they were in my board) and it
doesn't matter if you speak slowly or with pauses. What matters is the relevance and structure of
your answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment