Company Interview and Written Test Review The company’s hiring process begins with a written test consisting of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that assess general aptitude, reasoning, and subject-specific knowledge related to the role. The MCQs are designed to evaluate fundamental concepts and problem-solving skills efficiently. Following the written test, candidates face a coding round where algorithmic and programming ability are tested. Common coding tasks include manipulating strings and arrays, recursion, sorting, searching, and basic data structures like linked lists and trees. The coding problems typically test both logic and code optimization capability. Next, there is a focus on SQL and database management systems (DBMS). Candidates are evaluated on their ability to write efficient SQL queries involving joins, aggregations, subqueries, and data retrieval. The DBMS questions also cover essential theoretical concepts such as normalization, keys, transactions, and ACID properties to assess the candidate’s grasp of database fundamentals. Finally, in the technical interview, candidates are asked questions covering a broad range of topics — from core programming concepts to system design, debugging, and real-world problem solving. This round tests deeper understanding, communication skills, and practical knowledge application.

I applied for the Computer Software Engineer role through my university’s campus placement with Roima Intelligence (Ahmedabad). Unfortunately, the overall experience was disappointing. 1. Written Test Process: The process started with 20 MCQs, 2 medium-level coding questions, and a normalization table question. All coding had to be done on pen and paper, which felt outdated for a software engineering role. The evaluation of results took 4–5 hours with no transparency in how candidates were assessed. 2. Interview Experience: The technical interview felt unstructured and unprofessional. Midway through, a senior member of the company disrupted the process and behaved in a way that was dismissive and disrespectful toward candidates. He laughing towards candidates. The questions asked were far beyond a fresher internship level, focusing heavily on advanced OOPs and Java concepts. Instead of problem-solving discussions, candidates were asked to write lengthy code by hand, which made the interview feel more like a classroom test than a professional assessment. 3. Bond & Policies: The company requires selected candidates to sign a 2-year bond and provide 3 cheques worth ₹50,000. This condition feels restrictive and discouraging, especially for freshers who are just starting their careers. Instead of supporting learning and growth, the bond comes across as an attempt to tie down talent. 4. Overall Impression: For a fresher/internship opportunity, the expectations were unrealistic, and the process lacked fairness and respect for candidates’ time. The outdated methods, long delays, and strict bond conditions left a negative impression. Final Verdict: I would not recommend this placement process to students looking for a transparent, respectful, and growth-oriented first opportunity.