Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA.
Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable)
Background of the Disputed Recruitment
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014.
The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination.
A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval.
Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government
A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016.
The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations.
Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry.
A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017.
High Court's Scrutiny and Divergent Views
The cancellation was challenged in the Gauhati High Court.
A single Judge allowed the petition, opining that irregularities were rectifiable without cancelling the entire selection.
The Division Bench upheld this view, noting the absence of an inquiry before cancellation.
Supreme Court's Intervention and Analysis
The State of Assam appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court framed key questions, including the justification for High Court interference and the validity of the cancellation under Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality doctrines.
The Court reiterated that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
It acknowledged a successor government's duty to rectify illegalities committed by a previous government.
The Supreme Court analyzed the PCCF's note, noting serious concerns about fairness, transparency, skewed representation, and reservation policy violations.
While acknowledging that recruitment without rules or written exams isn't inherently invalid, the Court emphasized the need for fairness.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's single judge had effectively exercised appellate jurisdiction and had not adequately considered the larger public interest in fair and inclusive recruitment.
Applying the proportionality test, the Supreme Court held that the cancellation was not disproportionate to the detected illegalities.
The Court found that the successor government had sufficient justification to cancel the flawed process.
Final Verdict and Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and quashed the High Court's judgments.
The State was granted liberty to initiate a fresh recruitment process for the 104 Constable posts, preferably after framing recruitment rules and including a written examination.
As a measure of relief under Article 142, the previously selected candidates were granted age relaxation and waivers for minor physical/PET deficiencies if they apply to the new advertisement.
The PCCF was also given discretion to grant further relaxations.
The fresh recruitment process was directed to be initiated and concluded without delay.
Conclusion: Reinforcing the Sanctity of Public Recruitment
The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity and fairness of public recruitment processes. While selected candidates possess a legitimate expectation, the State retains the prerogative to cancel flawed selections when faced with substantial irregularities that undermine the principles of equal opportunity and equitable representation. This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that governmental actions are not arbitrary but are grounded in valid reasons, especially in matters concerning public employment. The concessions granted to the original candidates demonstrate a balanced approach, acknowledging their participation in the earlier process while upholding the need for a fresh and transparent recruitment exercise.