Cancellation of a recruitment process for 104 Forest Protection Force Constables. The initial selection, conducted in 2016, was invalidated by the Assam Government due to alleged violations of reservation policy and other irregularities. The Gauhati High Court had previously sided with the selected candidates, ruling that the irregularities could be rectified without fully canceling the list. However, the Supreme Court, upon review, reversed the High Court’s decision, finding the government’s cancellation to be a reasonable response to the systemic flaws identified in the selection process, which included a lack of candidates from many districts and improper application of reservation policies. The Court emphasized that while selected candidates don’t have an absolute right to appointment, the government’s decision to cancel the process was justified given the detected irregularities. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the appellants, the State of Assam, the liberty to initiate a fresh recruitment process, with certain concessions for the original respondents.
(A) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service Law – Recruitment – Judicial review – Whether the High Court was justified in its interference with the decision to cancel the select list and to require the process to be carried forward in the manner directed by it? – It is not that the High Court was called upon by any unsuccessful candidate to test the bona fide of the earlier Government decision not to frame recruitment rules and/or not to prescribe a written examination and/or to require the aspiring candidates to only go through an interview; on the contrary, the facts presented evince that it is the successor Government that had taken an informed decision not to proceed with the earlier process and to start a new process – At that stage of decision making, possibly, three options were available to the Government, being –
(i) allow the process to be taken to its logical conclusion, without being unduly bothered by the illegalities/irregularities detected and referred to by the PCCF;
(ii) cancel the entire process and start it anew; and
(iii) separate the grain from the chaff and to proceed with the former and complete the process. No doubt, the Government could have set right the process by preferring the third option – However, once the Government arrived at the decision considering the illegalities/irregularities detected by the PCCF that the process ought to be started afresh and preferred the second option to the first and third options, thereby cancelling the previous process, the High Court ought to have applied the proportionality test to adjudge whether the perfect balance was struck by preferring that option out of the other available options. Sadly, such test has not been applied.
Held that the approach of the single Judge of the High Court has evinced an exercise of appellate jurisdiction – Resting on the sole premise that no allegation of corrupt practice or unfair means adopted by the candidates (read, the respondents herein) had been levelled, the single Judge found force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the selection process cannot be said to be vitiated by malpractice – The single Judge also expressed the opinion that mere over-representation or under-representation, though may be suggestive of irregularity or malpractice, that by itself was not sufficient to arrive at a definitive conclusion that malpractice had occurred – Government itself felt that the selection being entirely based on interview, the same admitted an element of arbitrariness and that the assessment of candidates being based merely on the basis of marks at the interview, was reasonable for drawing a presumption of being misused for favouritism and could well be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. In such circumstances, it is indeed difficult, if not impossible, for a court to law to substitute its decision for the one taken by the Government reasoning that the selection has not been challenged by any unsuccessful candidate.
(Para 36 to 40)
(B) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service Law – Judicial review – Recruitment – Whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select list was either vulnerable on application of the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness or suspect applying the doctrine of proportionality and, therefore, liable to invalidation? – Held that no person of reasonable prudence would be left in doubt that the process had a coat of discernible taint suggesting impropriety and bias, if not corruption – Applying the test of proportionality, the decision taken by the successor Government of cancelling the process initiated by the earlier Government cannot be said to be so disproportionate and incommensurate with the illegalities/irregularities detected that interference could have been said to be legitimately warranted – Division Bench arrived at its own conclusion that the select list should not have been cancelled without any detailed inquiry having been conducted to find out the veracity of the irregularities or illegalities alleged – Whether or not a detailed inquiry was needed, despite the note of the PCCF, ought to have been left undisturbed since the successor Government reached a satisfaction of its own that for the various reasons highlighted in the said note, it would be unjust to proceed further – Such satisfaction could not have been tinkered by the Division Bench on the ground that a detailed inquiry ought to have been conducted – Held that that based on the note of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016 and the recommendation made by him for cancellation of the select list, the decision of the Government to approve the said note and, thereby, cancel the select list did not stand vitiated to attract its invalidation either by application of the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality – It has not been proved to our satisfaction that the impugned decision of cancelling the select list is the neat result of an injudicious exercise of discretion and was ill- directed in the guise of achieving the sanctity of the entire selection process – Impugned decision of cancellation was neither unjustified nor was one which could be upset by applying the doctrines of either Wednesbury unreasonableness or proportionality.
(Para 42 to 52)
(C) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service Law – Judicial review – Recruitment – Whether the decision of the appellants to cancel the select list infringed the legal rights of the respondents for which a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be maintained? Contention that by dint of mere empanelment/enlistment of an aspirant’s name for filling up a public post, no right accrues in favour of such an aspirant to move the writ court for redress repelled – Held do not consider that an empanelled or a selected candidate has absolutely no right to move the writ court – Conscious of the line of decisions of this Court which lay down the law that mere empanelment/enlistment does not result in accrual of any indefeasible right in favour of such empanelled/selected candidate as well as the law that the employer may, in its wisdom, either decide to cancel the select list or not carry on the process further resulting in the notified/advertised vacancy/vacancies not being filled up pursuant to the selection process, which has been conducted – What it means is that an empanelled/selected candidate can claim no right of appointment, if the State has cogent and germane grounds for not making the appointment – However, at the same time, it is also the law that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims – Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision – Policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker – This acts as a check on the employer’s power deciding against not making any appointment from the select list despite availability of vacancy/vacancies on the advertised/notified public post(s) – A writ court may, upon reaching the requisite satisfaction, intervene in such manner and make such directions as the facts and circumstances warrant – Held that do not find it acceptable that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment – Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on the facts of each case – On facts and in the circumstances, however, the respondents’ legal rights were not infringed because of absence of grant of legitimacy to the select list by way of an approval from the Government; hence, the writ petition should not have been allowed.
(Para 53 to 55)
(D) Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service Law – Recruitment – Judicial review – Held that the factors of “when”, “which”, “what”, “who” and “how” that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the selectors; however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non-arbitrariness – Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer-State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism – Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides – However, the right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in public service – Obviously, assessing the merit of the candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing field for each of them, the excellence of any institution to which the appointment is to be made would depend directly on the proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on the quality and merit of those who offer themselves for selection and ultimately get selected, necessitating the selection to be conducted without any hidden taint or masked mala fides – Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board.
(Para 35)
State Of Assam V. Arabinda Rabha
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 334: (DoJ 07-03-2025)
