Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Assam Forest Guard Selection List in Recruitment Case: State of Assam vs. Arabinda Rabha (March 7, 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 334
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J.

When can a government cancel a recruitment process midway? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Assam Forest Protection Force. The core issue revolved around the validity of the Assam government’s decision to cancel a select list of candidates for constable positions due to alleged irregularities in the selection process. Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, forming the bench, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

In 2014, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam (PCCF), initiated a recruitment drive to fill 104 constable positions in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The selection process took place in May 2016, with the respondents participating and qualifying in the physical efficiency test (PET) followed by interviews.

The Central Selection Committee, led by the then PCCF, purportedly prepared a select list of candidates deemed fit for appointment and submitted it to the Government for approval. However, a change in the political regime in Assam occurred in May 2016, following elections to the Assam Legislative Assembly.

On July 4, 2016, the new PCCF submitted a note to the Government, highlighting significant anomalies in the selection process. Based on this note, the Government, without conducting any inquiry, approved the cancellation of the select list on July 18, 2016. The stated reason for the cancellation was the violation of the reservation policy and judgments of the Supreme Court.

A notice was published on August 17, 2016, informing all concerned about the cancellation of the select list and indicating that further action regarding the recruitment of constables in the AFPF would be notified later. Subsequently, a fresh advertisement was issued on April 14, 2017.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Two writ petitions were filed in the Gauhati High Court. The first challenged the cancellation of the select list and the notice dated August 17, 2016. The second challenged the advertisement dated April 14, 2017. The High Court issued notice on the first writ petition on April 28, 2017, but did not grant an interim stay on the advertisement dated April 14, 2017, noting that it pertained to a different set of 132 constables.

On May 7, 2019, the single Judge allowed the first writ petition, stating that the irregularities in the select list could be rectified without disturbing the selection process. The Judge suggested reallocating candidates according to merit, category, and status, with due notice to those affected. The single Judge believed that the “chaff could be separated from the grain” and deemed the decision to cancel the entire selection process as untenable.

The State of Assam appealed this decision. However, on October 8, 2021, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the single Judge’s view and dismissed the writ appeal. The Division Bench noted that no inquiry had been conducted to ascertain the veracity of the alleged irregularities before cancelling the select list. The Bench also suggested that the irregularities could have been rectified to bring the process to a logical conclusion.

Legal Framework

This case involves the interpretation and application of several legal principles. Key among these is the right to be considered for public employment, which is considered a fundamental right. The Supreme Court also considered previous judgments regarding the rights of selected candidates and the government’s power to cancel a selection process.

The judgment refers to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.

The Supreme Court also relies on Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

The judgment also considers Article 162 of the Constitution, which deals with the extent of the executive power of a State.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments

• The writ petition should not have been entertained because the empanelled candidates had no absolute right to appointment.
• The Government was justified in cancelling the process due to serious irregularities.
• The High Court erred in directing the government to continue the process, as this overstepped the boundaries of judicial review.
• The PCCF’s note provided sufficient justification for the cancellation, and the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal based on the absence of an inquiry.

The appellants relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India ((1991) 3 SCC 47) to argue that the High Court erred in its directives.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The cancellation was based solely on the violation of the reservation policy and judgments of the Court, and the appellants cannot introduce new reasons to justify the cancellation.
• No rules were violated in preparing the select list because no rules existed at the time.
• The cancellation was based solely on the PCCF’s note without any inquiry.
• No challenge was made to the select list alleging corrupt practices.
• Even if there was a violation of the reservation policy, it was limited to 34 candidates, and cancelling the entire list was disproportionate.
• The High Court was correct in finding that the violation of the reservation policy was a curable defect.

The respondents cited the following cases:

• Anamica Mishra v. UPPSC ((1990) Supp SCC 692)
• Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu ((2003) 7 SCC 285)
• Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. ((2021) 4 SCC 631)
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission ((1978) 1 SCC 405)

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. Whether the appellants have urged new grounds to support the cancellation in addition to those assigned earlier in any affidavit/pleading?
5. What would be the just relief that can be granted to the parties to this civil appeal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several precedents to arrive at its decision. These authorities helped the Court determine the rights of candidates in a selection process and the extent to which a government can cancel a selection list.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha ((1974) 3 SCC 220):* The Court used this authority to support the principle that mere selection does not confer a right to appointment.
• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India ((1991) 3 SCC 47):* The Court relied on this case to reiterate that selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, but the State cannot act arbitrarily.
• Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana (1993 Supp (2) SCC 600):* The Court considered this case to support the view that candidates did not have any right to appointment until the selection process was finalized.
• Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana ((2008) 2 SCC 161):* The Court discussed the tests required to invalidate a decision of a subsequent Government nullifying a previous Government decision.
• All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar ((2010) 6 SCC 614):* The Court discussed the scope of both the unreasonableness test and the proportionality test.
• B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore (AIR 1966 SC 1942):* The Court referred to this case regarding conducting a process of recruitment without recruitment rules.
• Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of India ((1979) 3 SCC 165):* The Court referred to this case regarding conducting a process of recruitment without recruitment rules.
• Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. ((2000) 7 SCC 719):* The Court referred to this case regarding selection on the basis of viva voce only.
• Anamica Mishra v. UPPSC ((1990) Supp SCC 692):* The Court distinguished this case, noting that the reasons for cancelling the process were trivial compared to the reasons in the present case.
• Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu ((2003) 7 SCC 285):* The Court distinguished this case, noting that there were no serious grievances of malpractices.
• Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. ((2021) 4 SCC 631):* The Court emphasized that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts.
• R.S. Mittal v. Union of India (1995 Supp (2) SCC 230):* The Court cited this case for the principle that there must be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel.
• Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway ((2019) 12 SCC 798):* The Court reiterated that the employer must give cogent reasons for not appointing selected candidates.
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commission ((1978) 1 SCC 405):* The Court stated that this decision has no application because the Court confined its attention to the note of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the perceived irregularities and lack of fairness in the initial selection process. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process and ensuring that it is free from bias and arbitrariness. The Court also considered the government’s prerogative to take policy decisions in the interest of fairness and inclusivity.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

The court’s logical reasoning for the main issue can be summarized as follows:

Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in its interference with the decision to cancel the select list?

Flowchart:

Government Cancels Select List due to Irregularities
↓
High Court Interferes, Directing Process to Continue
↓
Supreme Court Examines Legality of Cancellation
↓
Were Irregularities Significant Enough to Justify Cancellation?
↓
Was the Government’s Decision Arbitrary or Unreasonable?
↓
Supreme Court Finds Cancellation Justified
↓
High Court’s Interference Not Warranted

Key Takeaways

• Governments have the authority to cancel recruitment processes if serious irregularities are detected.
• Selected candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment.
• Courts should be cautious in interfering with policy decisions taken by the government in the interest of fairness and integrity.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted the appellants the liberty to take forward the process of filling up 104 Constable positions in the AFPF by publishing a fresh advertisement. The Court suggested framing rules for the purpose of recruitment and uniformly applying such rules to all candidates. The Court also directed that the respondents be considered for appointment, waiving their age bar and insignificant minor deficiencies in physical measurement and PET requirements.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the government has the authority to cancel a flawed recruitment process to maintain fairness and integrity. The judgment reinforces the principle that selected candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment and that courts should be circumspect in interfering with policy decisions taken by the government in the public interest.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court’s orders and upholding the Assam government’s decision to cancel the select list for constable positions in the Assam Forest Protection Force. The Court emphasized the importance of fairness, integrity, and inclusivity in public employment and granted the government the liberty to initiate a fresh recruitment process.