This research paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the performance of prominent pre-trained large language models (LLMs), including GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-3.5 Turbo, text-davinci-003, text-babbage-001, text-curie-001, text-ada-001, llama-2-7b-chat, llama-2-13b-chat, and llama-2-70b-chat, in comparison to expert human evaluators in providing scores, identifying errors, and offering feedback and improvement suggestions to candidates during mock HR (Human Resources) interviews. We introduce a dataset called HURIT (Human Resource Interview Transcripts), which comprises 3,890 HR interview transcripts sourced from real-world HR interview scenarios. Our findings reveal that pre-trained LLMs, particularly GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-3.5 Turbo, exhibit commendable performance and are capable of producing evaluations comparable to those of expert human evaluators. Although these LLMs demonstrate proficiency in providing scores comparable to human experts in terms of human evaluation metrics, they frequently fail to identify errors and offer specific actionable advice for candidate performance improvement in HR interviews. Our research suggests that the current state-of-the-art pre-trained LLMs are not fully conducive for automatic deployment in an HR interview assessment. Instead, our findings advocate for a human-in-the-loop approach, to incorporate manual checks for inconsistencies and provisions for improving feedback quality as a more suitable strategy.