Introduction Of Written Test Midway Permissible If Recruitment Rules Don't Prescribe Procedure & Change Applies Uniformly: Gauhati HC

Background Facts

The State of Nagaland issued an advertisement inviting applications for 40 posts of Excise Constables. The recruitment process prescribed was physical test and suitability test (viva-voce). Subsequently, the number of posts was increased to 46. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition issued a Corrigendum introducing a written test in the recruitment process.

Aggrieved by the introduction of written test, the applicants filed a representation on 09.07.2025. Thereafter they filed a writ petition. However, no stay was granted. Therefore, the applicants participated in the selection process including the physical test. The Single Judge set aside the Corrigendum and directed the State respondents to conduct recruitment strictly in terms of the original Advertisement.

Aggrieved by the same, the State respondents filed the writ appeal before the Gauhati High Court.

It was argued by the State that the Nagaland Excise Service (Revised) Rules, 1999 provide for recruitment through competitive examination/selection but do not prescribe the detailed procedure. It was submitted that a meeting was held regarding recruitment of uniformed services which resolved to set up Departmental Recruitment Boards. It was further contended that the Corrigendum introducing written test was issued barely after one and a half months from the Advertisement and it was applicable to all applicants. It was further argued that the applicants participated in the selection process without protest. Hence, they were estopped from challenging it.

On the other hand, it was argued by the applicants that the 1999 Rules do not prescribe for a written test. The Departmental Recruitment Board was not empowered to change the rules of the game midway. It was submitted that when a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone. It was argued that if there are any changes to be done in the manner of selection and recruitment process, the same has to be done before the process starts.

It was further contended that the applicants had submitted a representation protesting against the inclusion of written test. They only participated because no stay was granted by the Court. It was further argued that Rule 5(ii) of the 1999 Rules requires Government approval for adopting methods of recruitment other than those specified, but it was not obtained for introducing the written test.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the 1999 Rules do not prescribe detailed procedure for direct recruitment. It only provides for recruitment through competitive examination/selection. It was further noted that the Departmental Recruitment Board was constituted with Government approval and took a decision to include written test for screening purposes.

The case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that in absence of rules to the contrary, the recruiting authority can devise a procedure for selection and may set benchmarks at different stages of recruitment.

It was further observed that the introduction of written test was applicable to all candidates. Further, proper steps for publications were done to call the candidates for conducting the physical test by issuing Notification which was also widely circulated in two local dailies i.e., 'Nagaland Post' and 'Eastern Mirror'.

It was noted by the Court that the applicants had submitted a representation but nevertheless participated in the physical test without any interim order from the Court. It was observed that the requirement of screening the candidates by way of taking written test for those who qualified in the physical test in absence of any Rules to the contrary cannot be said to be arbitrary.

The case of Santosh Kumar Tripathi and Ors. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation and Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that the power of the Commission or Selecting Authority to 'examine' would also include holding a written examination.

It was held by the Division Bench that the introduction of written test through the Corrigendum was not arbitrary or contrary to statutory provisions. It was further held that the judgment of the Single Judge could not be sustained.

With the aforesaid observations, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the State was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : State of Nagaland and Ors. vs. Shri T. Akon Phom and Ors.

Case No. : WA/39/2025

Counsel for the Appellants : C. T. Jamir, Sr. Adv., Aliba Ozukum, Adv

Counsel for the Respondents : Tongpok Pongener, Adv