Supreme Court Upholds Assam Government’s Cancellation of Recruitment List, Flags Arbitrariness in Selection Based on Interviews

New Headline:

⸻

Introduction

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Assam government’s 2016 decision to cancel a select list of 104 constables recruited for the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) in 2014. The Court emphasized that when selection is based solely on interview marks without a written examination, it raises concerns about arbitrariness and favoritism.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan ruled that the cancellation was justified and not disproportionate, particularly in light of the recruitment irregularities identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF). The anomalies included an unfair district-wise representation, violation of reservation policies, and a lack of written examination, which raised concerns about transparency and fairness.

The Supreme Court’s verdict came in response to an appeal by the State of Assam against a Gauhati High Court decision that had reinstated the recruitment list. The Court observed that recruitment processes should be governed by clear rules to ensure transparency and accountability, rather than being conducted through executive instructions alone.

⸻

Court’s Observations on the Recruitment Process

The recruitment process for AFPF constables was initiated in July 2014 through a public advertisement. It comprised a Physical Efficiency Test and an interview but lacked a written examination. Following the change in government in May 2016, the new Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) flagged several irregularities in the selection process in a report submitted on July 4, 2016. The report noted:

• Skewed district representation – A significant majority of the selected candidates (64 out of 104) were from Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts, while 16 other districts, which together constituted 52% of Assam’s population, had no representation at all.

• Violation of reservation policies – Meritorious reserved-category candidates were counted under their respective categories instead of being placed in the general category, as mandated by law.

• Lack of merit-based selection – The selection process relied entirely on interview scores, which increased the risk of favoritism and bias.

Without conducting a further inquiry, the Assam government canceled the select list on July 18, 2016, citing violations of the reservation policy and relevant Supreme Court precedents. A public notice was issued on August 17, 2016, to inform candidates about the cancellation, and a fresh recruitment advertisement was published in April 2017.

⸻

Proceedings in the Gauhati High Court

Aggrieved by the cancellation, several candidates filed writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. A single-judge bench ruled in their favor, stating that the identified irregularities could have been corrected without scrapping the entire recruitment process. The High Court’s Division Bench later upheld this ruling, arguing that the PCCF’s report alone could not be considered conclusive evidence of irregularities, particularly since no official inquiry had been conducted.

Disagreeing with this verdict, the Assam government approached the Supreme Court in appeal.

⸻

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court found that while the timing of the recruitment process—coinciding with the state elections—did not automatically render it invalid, the irregularities highlighted in the PCCF’s report were serious enough to justify cancellation.

One of the key concerns raised by the Court was that the entire selection process relied on interview scores without any written examination. The bench emphasized that this method is prone to arbitrariness and favoritism. In the absence of a structured recruitment policy, the selection process lacked transparency, which could compromise the integrity of public appointments.

The Court noted that while recruitment processes based on executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution are not inherently illegal, they should be backed by clear guidelines to prevent manipulation. The judgment further observed:

“Considering that corruption has become a reality in many areas of governance, it would have been preferable if the recruitment of 104 constables had been conducted after framing proper recruitment rules, including a written examination, to ensure fairness.”

Additionally, the Court criticized the Gauhati High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction by substituting its decision for that of the government. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless they are found to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

⸻

Public Interest Considerations and the Proportionality Test

The Supreme Court emphasized that the government’s decision to cancel the select list was not arbitrary but rather aimed at fostering diversity and inclusivity in recruitment. It pointed out that public sector appointments should reflect equitable regional representation and merit, ensuring that all districts, including historically marginalized regions, have fair opportunities.

The High Court had ruled that since there were no specific allegations of corruption or favoritism, the recruitment process should not have been scrapped entirely. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the decision should be viewed from a broader policy perspective rather than an individual grievance standpoint.

The Court underscored that policy decisions regarding recruitment cancellations must be taken in good faith, ensuring fairness for all candidates. It also reaffirmed that while selection through a recruitment process does not guarantee an appointment, a cancellation must be backed by valid reasons.

⸻

Implications and Recommendations

In its ruling, the Supreme Court directed the Assam government to initiate a fresh recruitment process for AFPF constables in accordance with the law. It also recommended the framing of clear recruitment rules to eliminate ambiguities in future hiring processes. Until such rules are in place, the selection process should be guided by publicly available administrative instructions to ensure transparency.

Moreover, recognizing the time lapse since the original recruitment process, the Court granted age relaxation and minor deficiency waivers to candidates who choose to reapply under the new selection process.

The judgment reinforces the importance of structured, rule-based recruitment processes in public employment. It highlights that reliance on subjective assessment methods, such as interviews without written tests, can undermine the fairness of selection processes, making them susceptible to manipulation.

⸻

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. underscores the necessity of transparent and rule-based recruitment processes in public employment. The judgment affirms that selection based solely on interviews is inherently prone to arbitrariness and favoritism, necessitating proper regulatory frameworks.

By upholding the Assam government’s decision to cancel the select list, the Court has set a precedent for ensuring fairness and diversity in public sector hiring. The ruling serves as a reminder that while governments have the discretion to make policy decisions regarding recruitment, they must be guided by principles of transparency, fairness, and inclusivity.

⸻

Case Details:

• Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025

• Case Title: State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.