I received an email confirming that my resume was shortlisted and was invited for a Face-to-Face interview on 22nd Nov 2025, scheduled between 10 AM – 1 PM. I reached the venue at 9:45 AM, and around 20–25 candidates were already waiting. The entry process was completely disorganized—security allowed only those whose names were on their list, and many candidates were sent back even though they had received an interview invite from the company. After entering, there was another verification list at the HR desk, and again candidates whose names weren’t listed were rejected. The entire process felt chaotic and poorly managed. Luckily, my name was on the list, and I proceeded to the 7th floor for the interview. The interview had five rounds, starting with a written coding test. However, they weren’t evaluating the coding test at all—everyone was allowed to appear for the first face-to-face round regardless of performance. My first round went smoothly. The questions were simple, and I answered everything confidently. However, the interviewer seemed distracted, barely paying attention, and even asked me to repeat answers because he was busy looking at other resumes. After the round, I waited 45 minutes for feedback. When I followed up, HR checked and simply said my feedback was not positive, without any explanation. It was surprising because I felt I performed well, and many other candidates shared the same confusion after being rejected despite good interviews. Based on my experience, if anyone is considering attending a walk-in at ICE, I would suggest prioritizing other interview opportunities. The process was disorganized, unclear, and not worth the time.

I attended the ICE Pune hiring drive on 22nd November, which was conducted as a full-day process (10:00 AM to 5:30 PM IST) and involved multiple rounds of evaluation. The process began with a coding round, where candidates were given four programming problems and required to solve any one. This was followed by a technical discussion focusing on Core Java, Selenium, Git, and CI/CD concepts. The next round varied across candidates. For some, it involved questions around day-to-day QA responsibilities and Agile processes, while for others it was a deep technical discussion emphasizing API testing and coding concepts. After this, there was a brief HR discussion covering standard topics. A VP discussion followed, which focused on roles and responsibilities, team expectations, motivation to join ICE, and comfort with working five days from the office. Despite clearing these multiple stages (five rounds in a single day), there was no clarity provided on selection status or next steps. Approximately two weeks later, I was contacted again for an additional technical discussion on a specific project, which lasted nearly one hour. Following this round as well, there was no communication or feedback. After another week, I was again invited for one more technical discussion for a different project, lasting around 45 minutes. Even after completing seven interview rounds, there is still no clarity on selection status, expectations, or outcome. While the interviewers were professional and discussions were technically meaningful, the lack of transparency, delayed communication, and repeated technical evaluations without feedback made the overall experience confusing and disappointing. Clear communication on outcomes and expectations at each stage would greatly improve the candidate experience, especially after investing significant time and preparation across multiple rounds. I continue to respect ICE as an organization and value the learning from the discussions; however, a more structured and transparent interview process would help set clearer expectations for candidates.