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.BackgroundA 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 CourtA 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...

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

Amisha Shrivastava

The Court opined that it was desirable to have a selection process based on a written exam and rules.

Tags