The Supreme Court has ruled that when a selection process is based entirely on interview marks, it is reasonable to presume the presence of arbitrariness and favoritism. The Court emphasized the importance of written examinations and clear selection rules to ensure fairness and transparency in recruitment processes.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the Assam government’s 2016 decision to cancel a recruitment list for 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF). The list was initially prepared in 2014 under the previous administration. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan determined that the cancellation was justified, citing irregularities in the recruitment process, such as uneven district representation and violations of the reservation policy.
Court’s Key Observations
The Court noted that the recruitment process was solely based on interviews, without a written examination or statutory rules to regulate it. The bench remarked that in the current climate, where corruption is often acknowledged as a societal concern, it would have been preferable to conduct the selection with a structured framework, including a written examination, to maintain integrity.
Quoting its observations, the Court stated:
“The government itself acknowledged that the selection process, being entirely interview-based, carried an inherent risk of arbitrariness. Assessing candidates purely on interview performance raised reasonable concerns about favoritism and rendered the process susceptible to misuse. Given these circumstances, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a court of law to override the government’s decision, especially when the selection was not contested by any unsuccessful candidates.”
Need for Transparent Recruitment Rules
The Court strongly advocated for the establishment of clear recruitment rules to avoid ambiguities that could lead to litigation. It stressed that until formal rules are framed, selection processes should adhere to publicly available administrative instructions.
“Based on our judicial experience, recruitment processes conducted under executive orders, without statutory guidelines, often lead to unnecessary litigation and undesirable consequences,” the bench observed.
Case Background
The recruitment process for 104 Constables in AFPF began with an advertisement on July 23, 2014. The selection process, comprising a Physical Efficiency Test and interviews, took place in May 2016. After the completion of the process, a list of selected candidates was submitted for government approval.
Following a change in government in May 2016, the new Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) flagged discrepancies in the selection process in a report dated July 4, 2016. The report highlighted the following issues:
- Over-representation from specific districts: Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) accounted for 64 out of 104 selected candidates, while 16 districts with 52% of the state’s population had no representation.
- Reservation policy violations: Meritorious candidates from reserved categories were incorrectly counted under their respective categories instead of the general category.
- Reliance solely on interviews: The absence of a written examination raised concerns regarding fairness and transparency.
Without conducting a formal inquiry, the government decided to cancel the select list on July 18, 2016, citing violations of reservation policies and Supreme Court precedents. A public notice regarding the cancellation was issued on August 17, 2016, followed by a fresh recruitment advertisement on April 14, 2017.
Legal Proceedings in the Gauhati High Court
A writ petition was filed before the Gauhati High Court challenging the cancellation of the select list. A single judge ruled in favor of the petitioners, reasoning that the identified irregularities could be corrected without canceling the entire process. The Division Bench upheld this ruling, arguing that the PCCF’s report alone was insufficient to justify the cancellation. Subsequently, the State of Assam appealed the decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Verdict and Rationale
The Supreme Court concluded that the timing of the recruitment process, which coincided with state elections in May 2016, did not automatically render the selection invalid. Additionally, the Court held that while the absence of formal recruitment rules did not invalidate the process, the identified irregularities justified the government’s decision to cancel the select list.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by replacing the government’s decision with its own. The bench emphasized that the government had chosen to annul the selection process due to fairness concerns and had not simply taken an arbitrary decision. Furthermore, the Court criticized the High Court’s reliance on the lack of corruption allegations, noting that public interest considerations, including district-wide representation and merit-based selection, were at stake.
“Ensuring diversity and inclusivity in public service, with representation from all districts, including historically backward areas, should be a priority for all state governments, particularly in the North-East. The cancellation of the select list aligns with this broader commitment and should not have been subject to judicial scrutiny,” the Supreme Court ruled.
Supreme Court’s Final Ruling and Directives
The Court underscored that selection does not guarantee appointment, and decisions regarding appointment must be justified and free from arbitrariness. While candidates do not have an absolute right to employment, they are entitled to challenge decisions if they believe the process was unfair. However, in this case, the Court determined that the respondents’ legal rights were not infringed. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and upheld the Assam government’s decision.
The Supreme Court permitted the State to initiate a fresh recruitment process for AFPF Constables in accordance with the law. To mitigate the impact of delays, the Court directed the government to grant age relaxations and minor waivers to candidates reapplying under the new selection process.
