“Government’s Decision to Cancel Selection Process Not Arbitrary”: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Judgment on Assam Forest Protection Force Recruitment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court has upheld the Assam government’s decision to cancel the selection process for 104 posts of constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF), reversing the judgment of the Gauhati High Court. The court recorded that the selection process suffered from serious irregularities, including violations of the reservation policy and an absence of fair representation from various districts. It held that the government’s decision to cancel the select list was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate and did not warrant judicial interference.
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan examined whether the state government’s action in annulling the selection process was justified under the doctrines of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality. The court recorded that the selection process was “highly questionable, unfair, and non-transparent” and held that judicial review could not be used to substitute the government’s decision-making on administrative matters.
The recruitment process was initiated through an advertisement dated July 23, 2014, for filling 104 constable posts in the Assam Forest Protection Force. The selection process, conducted in May 2016, involved a physical efficiency test (PET) followed by an interview. The respondents, who participated in the process, contended that they were included in the select list prepared by the Central Selection Committee and submitted for government approval.
A change in the political administration of Assam occurred in May 2016 following state legislative elections. On July 4, 2016, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) submitted a note to the government highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process. Based on this note, without conducting an independent inquiry, the government canceled the select list by an order dated July 18, 2016. The stated reason for cancellation was that the process had violated the reservation policy and judgments of the Supreme Court.
On August 17, 2016, a public notice was issued in a local newspaper, informing all concerned of the cancellation of the select list. A fresh advertisement was issued on April 14, 2017, inviting applications for recruitment of 132 constables.
The respondents filed two writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court—one challenging the cancellation of the select list and another challenging the fresh advertisement. A single judge allowed the first writ petition on May 7, 2019, holding that the irregularities in the selection process could be rectified without canceling the entire process. The judge recorded that “the chaff could be separated from the grain without much difficulty and, therefore, the decision to view the entire selection process as vitiated, leading to cancellation of the select list, is untenable.”
The Assam government appealed against this decision. A division bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on October 8, 2021, affirming that the selection process could have been corrected without canceling the entire list. The division bench observed that “prior to cancellation of the select list, no finding of fact had been arrived at pursuant to an inquiry conducted by any duly constituted inquiry committee” and that the government’s decision was based solely on the PCCF’s note.
The present appeal before the Supreme Court arose from this judgment.
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the government’s decision to cancel the select list. The court recorded that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right of appointment. The judgment states:
"It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied."
The court referred to the doctrine of proportionality, observing that a recruitment process cannot be set aside solely based on minor irregularities unless they are shown to be systemic and affecting fairness. The judgment states:
"Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of malpractices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process."
Examining the PCCF’s note of July 4, 2016, the court recorded that several irregularities were present in the selection process, including:
- Out of 104 selected candidates, 64 were from Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts, with no representation from 16 districts.
- The selection process had disregarded the reservation policy, leading to ineligible candidates being selected while meritorious reserved-category candidates were deprived of their rightful opportunities.
- Candidates were selected solely based on interviews, without a written examination, making the process susceptible to bias.
The court recorded:
"The entire process of recruitment is highly questionable, unfair, and non-transparent."
It further observed that the High Court had applied judicial review improperly by acting as an appellate authority over the government’s administrative decision. The judgment states:
"The writ court instead of substituting its view and/or imposing its own decision ought to have stayed at a distance instead."
The court also referred to the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness, holding that government decisions must be tested for fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, but judicial review cannot replace the government’s discretion in administrative matters. The judgment states:
"The successor Government, having taken a view which by no means was unreasonable and/or implausible, the writ court ought not to have interfered in the absence of malafide or gross arbitrariness."
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the Assam government’s decision to cancel the select list. The judgment states:
"The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court stand(s) quashed."
The government was granted liberty to restart the recruitment process through a fresh advertisement. The court directed:
"The appellants are granted liberty to take forward the process of filling up 104 Constables in the AFPF, in accordance with law, by publishing fresh advertisement."
It was further directed that if the respondents chose to apply in the fresh selection process, they would be granted age relaxation and other minor concessions due to the passage of time. The judgment states:
"If they choose to apply in pursuance of such advertisement, they shall be considered for appointment waiving their age bar as well as waiving insignificant minor deficiencies in physical measurement as well as insignificant requirements of the PET, considering that almost a decade has passed since the earlier process was initiated. This concession is granted in exercise of our power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution."
The Supreme Court directed that the fresh selection process be concluded without delay.
Case Title: State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 334
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
