The Killer called "We will get back to you"

Mr.  Isaac Madhavan Really a very nicely calculated and properly analysed comment. I am waiting for more from others too so that I can really open the eyes of the over prouder recruiters, apparently I put to test their knowledge and usability of English through the cross questioning time. May be they feel a bit insecure of me to be in the organization and brutally ignore me and my talents.  

Ardhendu, I completely understand you.

I have been personally against this "We will get back to you" routine, right from the very first day of the very first time that I was inducted into an interview panel.

The problem is that most people do NOT know how to give feedback and the other side of the coin is that many people do not take feedback positively.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the act of helping a person to take the given feedback positively is an extremely crucial parameter of the skill-level of the interviewer. In words which are perhaps simpler: If you don't know how to give feedback properly to an interview candidate, YOU ARE NOT A GOOD INTERVIEWER.

"Being professional" is one concept that MOST people are wrong about. Many interviewers COULD ACTUALLY DO A VERY GOOD JOB. Unfortunately, they lose their individuality and instead of thinking about proper results (considering future ramifications) they start thinking about "acceptability". They want to project an acceptable image of "professionalism". Therefore, most interviewers include the "We will get back to you" routine in their "repertoire" mainly because they think they are being very professional. :) 

Most organizations do not realize that they are cutting off their own feet in a way. This sort of callous behavior demonstrates THE LACK OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. However, in the long run, this is going to be detrimental to Industry - as a whole.

Why? They are denying potential recruits the information which will help correct themselves. So, they have to keep hunting for recruits. 

CMDs/CEOs/etc, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE MESS. 

If you're really interested in finding good recruits - try informing the rejected candidates on how to improve themselves. IF THE CANDIDATES IMPROVE THEMSELVES - WELL, YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS A LARGER POOL OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES TO CHOOSE FROM. 

What is more, such candidates who have improved themselves - in achieving the improvement(s) - have proven to you certain desirable traits.

Branded Companies and firms must cordially accept and promote the idea of 'Behavioral Scientists' by Mr. S. Muralidharan. To address different psychological needs of interviewees. It will strike a balance and find a match between interviewees and company needs. Psychometric test maybe called mandatory in some cases.  

Recruitment, per se, is a complex process, which requires both objective and subjective analysis of an individual, before eventually arriving at a particular decision.  For a long-term jobs, industry adopts the practice of "campus interview" - meaning take raw candidates, hone and polish them to suit the objective of the company and induct them on projects.  For short-term job positions - purely cater to "demand and supply" situation for an immediate requirement, majority of the companies are approaching third-party recruitment firms.  They are "head hunters" and keep the count of "number required" and "number supplied", keep some cushion for exigencies!  "Walk-in" falls under this category - its something like buying the products from "off-the-shelf" for specific requirement.  This happens in back-office operations.  "Demand and supply" and "training for a specific application" and "attrition" are the regular features in these set-ups!  In such a scenario of mass recruitment drive for a specific process or a service, human approach is far from a reality! 
As Kaushik said the "recruiters are also employees of some company" is an apt statement. They tend to forget their role and sometimes exceed their limits!  They don't realize they too have to face the same scenario if they are shunted out!  
The so-called "filtering process", at times, filters and retains the "precipitates" and the "qualitative ones" would have exited by the final round! The qualified "behavioural scientists" should play a major role in recruitment process.  Branded companies, in my view, should demand for at least one "Behavioural Scientist" to be inducted in every third-party recruiting firm and every candidate thus selected should go through them!  If that happens, both "objective and subjective analysis" of an individual is more or less done before the recruitment happens!
  

Apparently a very nice answer Kaushik, This is going to set the stage on fire.

Ardhendu the recruiters sometime forget that they are employees of some company and not the owner. They sometime like to test all skills of an interviewee, however mismatching it be with the job profile. They describe it as 'a part of the interview process'. The recruitment policy is just an area of exploitation for the fresh interviewees in India. The companies feel proud if they can create multiple and complex rounds of interview.