Introduction:
The Supreme Court in State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025, upheld the Assam government’s 2016 decision to cancel the select list for the recruitment of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF), originally notified in 2014 under the Indian National Congress-led government. The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan ruled that the cancellation was justified due to significant anomalies in the recruitment process, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations. The Court emphasized that the selection process, which was based solely on interviews without a written examination and conducted without any statutory rules, was prone to arbitrariness and potential favoritism. The Court also underscored the importance of framing clear recruitment rules to ensure transparency and fairness, preventing avoidable litigation. The decision reaffirmed that while candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment, a government has the authority to cancel a flawed selection process in the interest of public service and inclusivity, as long as such decisions are made in good faith and not arbitrarily.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The State of Assam, represented by the present BJP-led government, argued that the selection process conducted in 2016 suffered from serious irregularities and was not in compliance with constitutional principles of fairness and equal opportunity. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) had submitted a note detailing multiple discrepancies, such as overrepresentation of candidates from specific districts, violations of reservation norms, and the lack of a transparent selection mechanism. The State contended that since the entire process was interview-based, it left room for favoritism and compromised meritocracy. Further, the government emphasized that no statutory rules were framed to govern the recruitment, leading to procedural lapses. It was also argued that the cancellation of the list was not arbitrary but a policy decision in line with judicial precedents, ensuring fairness in public employment. The State maintained that a fresh selection process with proper guidelines would better serve the public interest by fostering diversity and ensuring representation from historically underrepresented districts.
On the other hand, the respondents, consisting of candidates who had been included in the select list, challenged the government’s decision, asserting that their selection was legally valid and that they had undergone a fair process. They argued that once a select list had been prepared, it conferred certain rights upon them, and its cancellation without a proper inquiry was unjustified. The respondents further contended that they had successfully cleared the prescribed physical efficiency tests and interviews, and there were no allegations of malpractice against them. They pointed to the High Court’s earlier ruling, which had held that the selection irregularities could have been rectified without resorting to a complete cancellation. They argued that the government had acted arbitrarily, depriving them of employment opportunities without providing any specific evidence of wrongdoing in their individual cases.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court, after carefully analyzing the contentions of both parties, upheld the cancellation of the recruitment process, ruling that the anomalies identified by the PCCF were significant enough to justify the decision. The Bench observed that public employment must be conducted in a transparent and fair manner, and any process that lacks clear guidelines and objective evaluation criteria is inherently susceptible to manipulation. The Court noted that the selection being based solely on interviews, without a written examination, opened doors to subjectivity and bias, which was a valid concern for the government. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that an assessment entirely dependent on interviews could lead to arbitrariness, and the government was within its rights to take corrective measures. The Court emphasized that judicial review does not empower courts to substitute their decisions for those taken by the executive unless there is clear evidence of mala fide intent or arbitrariness. It ruled that the High Court had erred in interfering with the government’s policy decision, as the cancellation of the select list was based on well-founded concerns regarding fairness and merit.
A key observation made by the Court was that fostering diversity and inclusivity in public service is a legitimate objective of governance. The disproportionate selection of candidates from two specific districts while excluding candidates from 16 other districts, despite them comprising over 50% of the state’s population, raised serious concerns about fairness. The Court recognized that a public recruitment process must ensure equitable representation without compromising merit, and the government’s decision aligned with this principle. Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that since no individual candidate had challenged the selection process, it should be presumed to be fair. It held that the government, as the appointing authority, had the power to nullify a flawed selection process in the greater public interest.
Additionally, the Supreme Court criticized the single judge of the High Court for approaching the matter from an appellate perspective rather than a judicial review standpoint. The High Court had attempted to rectify the irregularities instead of assessing whether the government’s decision to cancel the process was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court clarified that policy decisions regarding public employment should not be lightly interfered with unless they are patently arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court also acknowledged that while cancellation of a selection process does not automatically imply wrongdoing by selected candidates, it must be assessed in the broader context of ensuring fairness in recruitment.
The judgment reiterated that the absence of statutory recruitment rules and the reliance on executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution created legal ambiguities that needed to be addressed. The Court recommended the formulation of clear recruitment rules and emphasized that until such rules are framed, any selection process must be conducted through publicly accessible administrative instructions to prevent disputes and litigation. Recognizing the impact of the cancellation on the respondents, the Court directed the State of Assam to initiate a fresh recruitment process for AFPF Constables while granting concessions to previously selected candidates. This included age relaxation and waivers for minor procedural deficiencies to mitigate any hardship caused due to the prolonged litigation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the Assam government’s decision to cancel the select list. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that while candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment, the State has a duty to ensure transparency and fairness in public employment. The Court’s emphasis on framing clear recruitment guidelines serves as a reminder of the need for well-defined procedures in government hiring to prevent future disputes and uphold the integrity of the selection process.