When Selection Is Based Entirely On Interview Marks, It's Reasonable To Presume Existence Of Arbitrariness & Favouritism: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently upheld the 2016 decision of the then BJP government of Assam to cancel a select list for the recruitment process of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) notified in 2014 by the then Indian National Congress government.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan found that the cancellation was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the anomalies in the recruitment process identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations.

The Court further highlighted that the recruitment was based on interviews without any written exam and was not governed by any Rules.

“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”, the Court observed.

The Court observed –

“the 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.”

The Court also recommended the framing of clear recruitment rules to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process and directed that until such rules are framed, the selection process should be conducted based on administrative instructions made publicly available.

“drawing from our joint experience on the bench, we can say with some degree of conviction and authority that conducting recruitment processes in terms of executive orders and in the absence of statutorily prescribed standards, more often than not, invite avoidable litigation producing undesirable results”, the Court observed.

The Court observed that the usual reasons for non-interference in a recruitment process do not fully apply in this case due to its unique facts, as an unsuccessful candidate didn't challenge it, rather, it was the successor government that deemed the recruitment process illegal and cancelled it.

“Left to us, if any process of selection was challenged by unsuccessful candidates on the ground of absence of recruitment rules, or on the grounds of absence of a written examination, or on the allegations of bias or favouritism or nepotism which are nebulous, we would certainly not interfere in the absence of other apparent vitiating factors. However, the situation in the present case has taken a completely different turn. It is the successor Government which nullified the select list”, the Court highlighted.

Background

A recruitment process for 104 Constables in the AFPF was initiated in Assam through an advertisement dated July 23, 2014. The selection process, including a Physical Efficiency Test and interviews, was conducted in May 2016. The respondents participated in the process and claimed that their names were included in the select list. This list was submitted to the government for approval.

Following a change in the political regime in Assam in May 2016, the new Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) submitted a note on July 4, 2016, highlighting anomalies in the selection process. These included –

• The select list showed over-representation from Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts as 64 out of 104 selected candidates were from these districts, with no candidates from 16 other districts which had 52% of the state's population.
• The reservation policy was violated, as meritorious reserved-category candidates were wrongly counted under their categories instead of the general category.
• Non-meritorious candidates were included in the list, and the selection process relied solely on interviews, raising concerns about fairness and transparency.

Without conducting an inquiry, the government cancelled the select list on July 18, 2016, citing violations of reservation policy and Supreme Court judgments. A notice was published on August 17, 2016, informing about the cancellation. A fresh advertisement for recruitment was issued on April 14, 2017.

Proceedings in the Gauhati High Court

A writ petitions were filed before the Gauhati High Court challenging the cancellation of the select list. The single judge allowed the petition, holding that the irregularities in the selection process could be rectified without cancelling the entire process. The Division Bench upheld this judgment stating that no inquiry was conducted to ascertain the irregularities and that the PCCF's note could not be treated as conclusive. Thus, the State of Assam approached the Supreme Court in the present appeal.

Supreme Court's Observations

The Supreme Court said that the commencement of interviews in May 2016, coinciding with the state elections, did not by itself invalidate the selection process, as there was no reference to this timing in the PCCF's note or any subsequent government decision. Additionally, conducting the recruitment process based on executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution, despite the absence of formal recruitment rules, did not render the process invalid.

However, the Court upheld the cancellation, given the anomalies identified. The analysis was confined to the original grounds in the PCCF's note, which the Court found to sufficiently justify the government's decision.

The Court noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its decision for that of the government.

The government chose to cancel the process entirely, considering the irregularities identified by the PCCF. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to apply the proportionality test to determine whether this decision was reasonable, given the available options.

The Court criticised the single judge of the High Court for approaching the case from an appellate perspective. The judge had held that the absence of allegations of corrupt practices against candidates meant that the selection process could not be deemed vitiated. The High Court had observed that while the ratio of candidates called for interviews was irregular, the deviation was not substantial enough to justify cancelling the entire process.

However, the Supreme Court found that this view overlooked the broader public interest considerations that the successor government had in mind, including fostering diversity, inclusivity, and ensuring representation from all districts, including historically backward areas.

“Fostering diversity and inclusivity in public service, ensuring that there is representation from almost all the districts including from the hills and historically backward classes without, however, compromising merit should be the commitment of all Governments of States in the North-Eastern part of the country. The decision to cancel the select list has the marks etched to proceed towards such commitment and achieving the greater good. Such a noble initiative was, by no means, open to scrutiny by the judicial review court.”

The Court also observed that while selection does not guarantee appointment, a decision not to appoint must be based on justifiable reasons and not taken arbitrarily. The Court emphasized that policy decisions to cancel a selection process must be taken in good faith, avoiding arbitrariness. Though candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment, they can challenge adverse decisions if they believe the process was unfair.

In the present case, the Court found that the legal rights of the respondents were not infringed. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgments.

The Court held that the State can initiate a fresh recruitment process for 104 AFPF Constables in accordance with the law. The Court recommended framing recruitment rules to ensure transparency. Additionally, respondents applying under the new process were granted concessions, including age relaxation and waivers for minor deficiencies, considering the elapsed time.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025

Case Title – State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 307